LEGEN  D 

Cession  Boundaries      m*> 
Military  Reservations  | 
Indian  "  i_J 

Forest          "          _ 
National  Parks  • 


USSIA    1867 


O  F     THE 

UNITED  STATES 


THE 


LOUISIANA  PURCHASE 


OUR  TITLE  WEST  OF  THE  ROCKY 
MOUNTAINS, 


A  REVIEW  OF  ANNEXATION  BY  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


BINGER   HERMANN, 

COMMISSIONER   OF   THF,   GENERAL    LAND   OFFICE. 


REPUBL1SHED    BY   JOINT    RESOLUTION    OF    CONGRESS. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT     PRINTING    OFFICE. 
I  9OO. 


£33 

1X57 


SYNOPSIS. 


Page. 

THIv  LOUISIANA  PURCHASE n 

Krror  in  United  States  map 1 1 

What  was  the  original  Louisiana? 12 

LaSalle's  descent  of  the  Mississippi 12 

LaSalle  takes  possession  in  name  of  Louis  XIV 12 

DeTonty's  narrative  of  the  discovery 12 

Iberville's  exploration  of  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi 13 

Settlement  at  Biloxi 13 

Spanish  claim  to  territory  along  Gulf  east  of  Mississippi 13 

De  Soto  at  Tampa  Bay 13 

First  settlement  of  New  Orleans 14 

The  grant  to  Crozat •. 14 

Moll's  map 15 

Bowen's  map  of  North  America 15 

Jefferson's  letter  to  Mellish 15 

Franquelin's  map 13-  T^ 

Crozat's  colony  abandoned 16 

FRANCE  CEDES  To  SPAIN 17 

Treaty  between  France  and  Spain 17 

Louisiana  a  troublesome  and  expensive  province 18 

De  Ulloa's  arrival  at  New  Orleans 18 

His  expulsion 19 

Spanish  fleet  appears  before  New  Orleans 20 

SPAIN  CEDES  FLORIDA  TO  GREAT  BRITAIN 20 

Confusing  treaties 20 

The  family  compact 21 

Talleyrand's  explanation 21 

THE  FI.ORIDAS  RETROCEDED  TO  SPAIN 23 

THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  SPAIN 23 

Southern  boundary  defined 23 

American  settlements 23 

The  navigation  of  the  Mississippi 23 

Popular  discontent 25 

Attempts  to  secure  commercial  privileges 25 

SPAIN  RETROCEDES  TO  FRANCE 26 

The  treaty  of  San  Ildefonso,  1800 ...  26 

Depredations  upon  our  commerce  by  France 26 

Preparations  to  resent  such  depredations 26 

Dismissal  of  our  envoys 26 

3 


984702 


4  SYNOPSIS. 

SPAIN  RKTROCRDKS  To  FKANCK — Continued.  Page. 

Livingston's  remarks 26 

Threatened  war  between  France  and  England 27 

Monroe  nominated  for  an  extraordinary  mission  to  France. 27 

New  Orleans  and  Florida  are  demanded 2,S 

Napoleon  offers  to  cede  all  of  Louisiana 28 

Two  prominent  actors 29 

Thomas  Jefferson 29 

Marquis  de  Marbois 29 

The  American  negotiators 30 

Robert  R.  Livingston 30 

James  Monroe 30 

LOUISIANA  CEDED  TO  THE  UNITED  STATKS 32 

Indefinite  boundaries 32 

Ratifications  exchanged 33 

Possession  taken 34 

A  rivalry  for  honor 35 

Livingston's  letter 35 

The  magnitude  of  the  purchase 36 

Its  population  in  1890 36 

vStatistics 36 

Kariy  opposition  to  annexation 36 

Speeches  in  Congress  adverse  to  cession 37 

A  striking  contrast 38 

VALUE  AXD  RESOURCES  OK  LOUISIANA  PURCHASE 38 

Colorado: 

Its  gold,  silver  and  cattle 38 

Wyoming: 

Its  cattle  and  sheep 38 

Montana: 

Its  silver,  copper,  cattle  and  sheep 38 

South  Dakota: 

Its  gold  and  wheat 39 

North  Dakota: 

Its  wheat 39 

Oklahoma: 

Its  wheat  and  cotton 39 

Its  wonderful  development 39 

THK  LEWIS  AND  CLARKE  EXPEDITION 39 

Jefferson's  object  wyas  to  secure  trade  relations 41 

THE  FLORIDA  BOUNDARIES  UNCERTAIN 42 

The  United  States  dispossesses  Spain 45 

The  Florida  wars 47 

The  Florida  treaty 47 

OUR  WESTERN  LIMIT  OE  LOUISIANA 48 

La  Salle's  settlement • 48 

THE  ANNEXATION  OF  TEXAS 48 

Its  value  and  resources 48 

Cotton  and  live  stock 49 

OUR  NATION  CLAIMS  BEYOND  THE  ROCKIES 49 

The  claims  of  England 49 

The  claims  of  Spain 50 

.  England's  claim  contested 51 

RUSSIA'S  CLAIM  ACKNOWLEDGED 51 

Russia  sells  Alaska  to  the  United  States 52 


SYNOPSIS.  5 

RUSSIA'S  CLAIM  ACKNOWLEDGED — Continued.  Pa«e. 

()])jx)silion  to  the  purchase 52 

Speeches  in  Congress  adverse  thereto 52 

The  value  and  resources  of  Alaska 53 

Its  gold  production 53 

The  fish  of  Alaska 54 

The  fur  seals 54 

JOINT  C)ccn>ANCv  AND  NEGOTIATION 55 

The  British  ultimatum 55 

The  mystery  of  the  forty-ninth  parallel 55 

No  evidence  adopting  the  forty-ninth  parallel 56 

Hall  J.  Kelley's  immigration  scheme 60 

The  \Vilkes  Exploring  Expedition 61 

American  settlements  encouraged 62 

' '  Fifty-four,  Forty,  or  Fight " 62 

Our  northern  boundary  defined 63 

OREGON  ADMITTED  AS  A  TERRITORY " 63 

The  question  of  slavery 63 

Thomas  H.  Benton 65 

( )regon  provisional  government 65 

The  pioneers  of  the  West 65 

The  extent  of  the  Oregon  country 66 

A  splendid  empire 67 

Its  value  and  resources 67 

Oregon  : 

Its  gold,  live  stock,  wheat  and  other  products 67 

Washington  : 

Its  timber,  wheat  and  live  stock 68 

Idaho: 

Its  gold,  silver  and  live  stock 68 

OUR  MEXICAN  PURCHASE 68 

Its  extent 69 

California: 

Its  gold,  wheat,  live  stock,  hay,  lumber,  barley,  wine  and  fruits 69 

THE  GOLD  PRODUCT  OE  THE  UNITED  STATES 69 

THE  SILVER  PRODUCT  OE  THE  UNITED  STATES  FOR  1896 70 

Utah  : 

Its  gold,  silver,  live  stock  and  wheat 69 

Nevada : 

Its  gold,  silver  and  live  stock 69 

New  Mexico : 

Its  cattle,  sheep  and  wheat 69 

Arizona : 

Its  gold,  copper,  cattle  and  sheep 70 

Total  cost  of  annexations 70 

Imperfect  statistics  70 

OREGON  AND  THE  LOUISIANA  PURCHASE 70 

The  claim  of  contiguity 72 

Sir  Alexander  McKen/.ie's  expedition 74 

No  proof  that  Oregon  was  included  in  the  Louisiana  purchase 75 

Authorities  cited 75 

Official  declarations  increased  popular  error 75 

JEFFERSON,  MARHOIS,  AND  GREENHOW 76 

Conclusions  and  recommendations 78 


6  SYNOPSIS. 

Page. 

A  REVIEW  OF  ANNEXATION  BY  THE  UNITED  STATES 79 

Early  objections  to  annexation  analyzed 79 

The  extent  of  our  acquisitions 79 

Remoteness 79 

The  constitutionality  of  annexation 80 

Annexation  an  element  of  strength Si 

Homogeneity  not  a  serious  objection Si 

Annexation  by  other  nations  and  their  foreign  elements 82 

An  object  lesson  in  England's  assimilation  of  races 83 

Our  further  destiny 84 

Our  increasing  commerce 84 

Hawaii 85 

Our  Asiatic  trade 85 

The  Sandwich  Islands  a  safeguard S6 

The  Nicaragua  Canal 86 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 


Territorial  growth  of  the  United  States Frontispiece. 

Before  page. 

Map  by  Franquelin  in  1684 13 

Moll's  map,  1 7 10 15 

Map  of  Alaska 52 

Map  of  Hawaiian  Islands 85 

Thomas  Jefferson  in  1803 29 

Barbe  Marbois 29 

Robert  R.  Livingston 30 

President  Monroe 31 

William  H.  Seward 55 

President  Polk 63 

Thomas  H.  Bentou 65 

7 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 

GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE, 

Washington,  July  7,  1898. 

SIR  :  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  herewith  my  recommendation  for  a  correction 
of  the  last  published  map  of  the  United  States  by  the  Department,  so  far  as  it 
represents  the  portion  of  our  country  westward  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  and 
now  embracing  Oregon,  Washington,  Idaho  and  portions  of  Montana  and  Wyo 
ming  to  have  been  acquired  by  the  United  States  by  or  through  the  Louisiana 
Purchase,  the  correction  to  be  made  in  the  republication  of  that  map  by  the 
Department ;  and  in  connection  with  such  recommendation  I  respectfully  submit 
various  conclusions  which  I  have  reached  relating  to  this  subject,  including  a 
review  of  the  various  annexations  by  the  United  States,  which  I  hope  will  meet 
your  approval. 

Very  respectfully,  BiNGER  HERMANN, 

Com  m  issioner. 
Hon.  CORNELIUS  N.  BLISS, 

Secretary  of  the  Interior. 


DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 

Washington,  July  <?,  1898. 

SIR  :  Your  letter  of  the  yth  instant  has  been  received.  You  call  attention 
therein  to  an  error  in  the  last  map  of  the  United  States  published  by  the  Depart 
ment  (1897)  in  so  far  as  it  represents  the  portion  of  the  country  westward  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains  now  embracing  Oregon,  Washington,  Idaho  and  portions  of 
Montana  and  Wyoming  to  have  been  acquired  by  the  United  States  by  or  through 
the  Louisiana  Purchase.  You  also  submit  in  connection  therewith  a  very  care 
fully  prepared  paper  upon  the  matter  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase,  and  upon  the 
various  annexations  made  by  the  United  States,  and  recommend  that  the  error  in 
question  be  corrected  upon  the  next  map  of  the  United  States  to  be  published  by 
the  Department. 

Upon  careful  consideration  of  the  matter,  as  so  ably  presented  by  you,  your 
recommendations  in  the  premises  meet  with  my  approval,  and  the  correction  will 
be  made  upon  the  next  map  of  the  United  States  to  be  issued  by  the  Department. 
Very  respectfully, 

C.   N.   BLISS, 

Secretary. 
Hon.  BINGER  HERMANN, 

Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office. 


THE  LOUISIANA  PURCHASE 

AND 

OUR  TITLE  WEST  OF  THE  ROCKY  MOUNTAINS, 

WITH 

A  REVIEW  OF  ANNEXATION  BY  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


By  BINGER  HERMANN, 
Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office. 


Of  all  distinguishing  events  in  the  glorious  career  of  this  country,  aside  from 
its  triumphs  for  liberty  and  for  union,  none  shine  forth  with  such  imperishable 
luster  as  the  acquisition  of  that  splendid  empire  west  of  the  Mississippi  River ; 
and  when  the  impartial  historian  shall  write  up  the  great  men  and  the  great 
measures  of  our  nation  he  will  place  at  the  top  of  the  rolls  Thomas  Jefferson  and 
the  Louisiana  Purchase.  The  importance,  then,  of  this  subject  deserves  that  it 
shall  be  accurately  as  well  as  impartially  reviewed. 

I  am  induced  to  enter  upon  this  matter  because  of  an  error  which  I  conceive 
exists  upon  the  map  of  the  United  States  as  published  under  the  direction  of  my 
predecessor,  and  which  goes  forth  with  the  official  indorsement  of  the  Depart 
ment.  The  error  to  which  I  refer  is  in  the  representation  that  the  cession  of 
Louisiana  from  France  in  1803  comprised  territory  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains, 
now  known  as  Oregon,  Washington,  Idaho  and  portions  of  Montana  and  Wyo 
ming.  Believing  that  such  domain  was  derived  by  the  United  States  based  on 
the  right  of  discovery,  exploration  and  occupancy  by  our  own  people,  together 
with  the  cession  from  Spain,  by  treaty  of  February  22,  1819,  of  such  adverse 
rights  as  that  nation  claimed  to  possess,  I  have  assumed  the  liberty  of  represent 
ing  these  facts  on  the  new  edition  of  the  United  States  map  .soon  to  be  published 
by  the  Department. 

In  support  of  this  position  I  submit  the  conclusions  to  which  I  have  arrived, 
together  with  the  views  of  eminent  historians,  diplomats,  statesmen  and  writers 
on  both  sides  of  this  interesting  and  famous  contention.  In  subsequent  pages 
I  shall  refer  to  the  value  of  this  acquisition  and  to  the  advantages  which  have 
followed  our  other  annexations  to  the  public  domain. 

ii 


12  THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE. 

WHAT  WAS  THE  ORIGINAL  LOUISIANA? 

First,  it  may  be  asked,  what  was  originally  understood  to  be  the  Louisiana 
territory?  It  is  essential  that  we  know  the  extent  of  this  domain  as  it  was 
understood  by  the  men  who  discovered,  explored  and  named  it,  and  then 
described  it  to  the  world. 

L/a  Salle  was  the  first  to  descend  the  Mississippi  from  its  navigable  northern 
waters  to  its  mouth,  and  from  the  Gulf  inward  again.  His  discovery  was  not  a 
mere  accident,  nor  was  it  left  unwritten  and  in  doubt.  His  journey  was  under 
taken  for  purposes  of  discovery,  and  every  important  observation  was  carefully 
noted  and  reported  by  him.  He  was  a  man  of  education  and  received  a  patent  of 
nobility.  His  expeditions  were  under  the  authority  of  the  French  Government, 
and  he  early  won  the  confidence  and  admiration  of  that  nation's  monarch,  Louis 
XIV.  The  Chevalier  Henry  de  Tonty,  Fathers  Hennepin  and  Membre  and  other 
'well-known  explorers  were  his  companions  in  many  expeditions,  and  a  few  years 
before,  .over  jmich  of  the  same  ground,  Marquette  and  Joliet  had  opened  the  way 
•atiriOi'ig  'the .  Indian  tribes.  The  result  of  his  researches  was  made  known  in 
France,  and  efforts  were  at  once  made  by  the  government  to  colonize  the  country 
and  extend  exploration. 

La  Salle,  standing  with  Tonty,  Dautray  and  other  companions  on  the  banks 
of  the  most  western  channel  of  the  Mississippi,  about  3  leagues  from  its  mouth, 
on  April  9,  1682,  took  possession  of  the  country  in  the  name  of  Louis  XIV,  and 
setting  up  a  column,  or,  as  Dr.  Kohl  insists,  "a  cross  with  arms  of  the  King," 
buried  a  plate,  unfurled  the  flag  of  France,  sung  a  Te  Deum  and  naming  the 
country  "Louisiana"  in  a  loud  voice,  proclaimed  its  extent  to  be  "from  the  mouth 
of  the  great  river  St.  Louis,  on  the  eastern  side,  otherwise  called  Ohio,  Alighin, 
Sipore,  or  Chiskagona,  and  this  with  the  consent  of  the  Chaonanons,  Chikachas 
and  other  people  dwelling  therein  with  whom  we  have  made  alliance,  as  also  along 
the  river  Colbert,  or  Mississippi  and  rivers  which  discharge  themselves  therein, 
from  its  source  beyond  the  Kious  or  Nadonessions,  and  this  with  their  consent, 
and  with  the  consent  of  the  Motanties,  Illinois,  Mesigameus,  Natches,  Koroas, 
which  are  the  most  considerable  nations  dwelling  therein,  with  whom  also  we  have 
made  alliance  *  *  *  as  far  as  its  mouth  at  the  sea  or  Gulf  of  Mexico  *  *  * 
and  also  to  the  mouth  of  the  river  Palms,  upon  the  assurance  which  we  have 
received  from  all  these  nations  that  we  are  the  first  Europeans  who  have  descended' 
or  ascended  the  said  river  Colbert." 

He  also  named  the  Mississippi  ' '  Colbert,"  in  honor  of  his  friend  and  patron,  M. 
Colbert,  the  colonial  minister  under  Louis  XIV,  and  upon  whose  report  the  King 
conferred  upon  La  Salle  the  rank  of  esquire,  with  power  to  acquire  knighthood. 

De  Tonty,  La  Salle's  companion,  who  has  written  a  detailed  narrative  of 
the  discovery,  describes  the  countries  at  the  heads  of  the  various  tributaries  of  the 
Mississippi,  all  of  which  were  included  under  the  name  of  "Louisiana,"  and  it  is 
remarkable  how  accurately  he  estimates  the  distance  of  one  river  from  another 


MAP    OF    FRANQUELIN      1684. 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE.  13 

and  the  length  of  each.  The  Falls  of  St.  Anthony  seem  to  have  been  known,  as 
Hennepin  was  sent  by  La  Salle  to  that  point,  and  the  Missouri  from  its  source  is 
mentioned  and  described  at  different  points.  A  map  prepared  by  De  Tonty,  as  he 
states,  accompanied  his  report  and  exhibited  the  general  scope  of  country  embraced 
within  Louisiana.  Unfortunately  nothing  more  is  known  of  this  map.  No  refer 
ence,  however,  was  ever  made  to  any  country  westward  of  the  highlands  which  are 
the  sources  of  the  rivers  flowing  from  the  west  into  the  Mississippi ;  and  Louisiana 
was  never  understood  as  extending  beyond  those  highlands  by  any  of  these  explorers. 
This  is  further  corroborated  by  Franquelin,  a  young  French  engineer,  who  was  in 
Quebec  when  La  Salle  returned  from  his  discovery,  and  who  learned  from  him  the 
extent  of  the  same,  and  then  crudely  mapped  the  country  on  what  has  since  been 
known  as  Franquelin' s  Great  Map  of  1684,  on  which  is  shown  Louisiana  with  the 
western  boundary  on  the  head  waters  of  the  Mississippi. 

On  March  2,  1699,  Iberville,  a  daring  French  explorer,  entered  the  mouth  of 
the  Mississippi  and  ascended  100  leagues,  and  on  descending  passed  through  the 
river  Iberville,  named  for  him,  and  thence  through  lakes  Maurepas  and  Pontchar- 
train  into  the  Gulf.  The  last-named  lake  was  named  by  Iberville  in  honor  of  the 
Count  de  Pontchartrain,  who  was  minister  of  marine  under  Louis  XIV.  The 
former  lake  was  named  after  Count  Maurepas,  minister  under  Louis  XV  and  Louis 
XVI,  and  who  died  with  the  ill-fated  King. 

The  land  westward  of  these  waterways  and  eastward  of  the  Mississippi  from 
the  island  of  New  Orleans,  being  a  part  of  the  French  discoveries,  is  properly 
included  in  Louisiana.  In  1721  French  immigrants  arrived  at  Mobile  Bay  and  at 
Biloxi,  and  previous  to  this  the  French  Canadian,  Du  Tissenet,  with  an  escort, 
went  from  Dauphine  Island  by  way  of  Mobile  river  to  Quebec.  The  first  colony 
was  settled  at  Biloxi  in  1699.  It  was  for  some  time  the  chief  settlement  of 
Louisiana,  and  contained  a  fort. 

.  To  the  east  of  the  Mississippi,  Franquelin  has  shown  Florida  with  a  dotted 
boundary  which  was  then  much  as  it  is  at  present,  except  that  for  some  distance 
east  of  the  Mississippi  the  country  then  was  included  in  Louisiana.  The  map  is 
also  evidence  of  the  presence  of  the  Spaniards,  and  La  Salle  in  his  memorials 
presented  to  the  King  his  scheme  of  erecting  fortifications  near  the  mouths  of  the 
Mississippi  and  then  of  driving  out  the  neighboring  Spanish  colonists.  Here  we 
have  at  the  very  outset  material  for  the  subsequent  disputes  as  to  West  Florida, 
and  the  uncertainty  as  to  whether  it  was  French  in  the  Louisiana  claim  or  Florida 
under  prior  Spanish  discovery.  At  this  point  it  may  be  as  well  to  inquire  into  the 
claim  of  the  Spaniards  as  to  that  territory  along  the  Gulf  east  of  the  Mississippi. 
Commencing  with  Ponce  de  Leon,  who  reached  the  coast  of  Florida  near  the 
present  site  of  St.  Augustine  March  27,  1512,  we  next  find  Mimelo,  who  arrived 
from  Cuba  in  1516;  then  De  Cordova,  who  arrived  in  1517  with  an  expedition  of 
Spaniards  who  were  seeking  gold  ;  and  he  was  followed  by  Alaminos  with  several 
ships  for  the  same  purpose.  In  1539  we  find  Hernando  de  Soto  landing  with  a 
large  company  of  Spaniards  at  Tampa  Bay,  and  from  there  he  went  to  Tallahassee; 


14  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

thence  he  moved  to  the  Savannah  River  below  the  present  site  of  Augusta,  and 
then  toward  the  head  of  Mobile  Bay,  and  then  to  the  Mississippi,  which  he  dis 
covered  near  the  mouth  of  the  Arkansas.  After  his  death,  near  the  mouth  of 
Red  river,  his  successor,  Luis  de  Moscoso,  took  the  command,  numbering  about 
300,  down  the  Mississippi  to  the  Gulf,  July  18,  1543. 

In  1528  De  Narvaez  led  a  large  force  of  Spaniards  and  landed  in  Clear  Water 
Bay,  following  along  the  Gulf  shore  on  the  west.  A  portion  returned  to  Cuba, 
while  the  greater  portion  were  destroyed.  None  made  settlement.  Still  further 
east  on  the  Florida  coast  French  colonies  were  founded,  but  these  were  driven  out 
in  1563  by  Menendez  with  Spanish  troops,  who  then  erected  forts  from  St.  Augus 
tine  northward  as  far  as  Carolina.  This  possession  was  maintained  to  the  time 
when  La  S'alle  claimed  Louisiana  for  France.  It  may  be  said  of  the  Spaniards, 
however,  that  they  made  no  attempt  to  gain  a  foothold  far  in  the  interior,  and  this 
explains  the  narrow  limit  of  their  possession  north  from  the  Gulf.  Bienville  was 
appointed  governor  of  Louisiana  in  1717,  and  one  of  his  first  acts  in  that  year 
was  to  select  a  principal  establishment  for  the  French  colony,  which  he  did  by 
choosing  the  site  which  is  now  the  city  of  New  Orleans.  It  was  then  covered  by 
a  dense  forest,  the  soil  being  swampy.  A  detachment  of  soldiers  was  left  there  for 
the  double  purpose  of  clearing  the  ground  and  of  protecting  the  colonists.  This 
was  the  origin  of  New  Orleans,  named  in  honor  of  the  Duke  of  Orleans,  the  then 
regent  of  France.  In  1723  the  seat  of  government  was  definitely  removed  to  that 
place,  which  then  contained  300  population.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  at  this  point 
that  in  this  year  the  French  Government  considered  the  importance  of  securing 
deeper  water  at  the  entrance  to  the  Mississippi,  and  that  the  official  engineer— 
Pauger — had  recommended  a  plan  of  improvement  which  was  in  principle  based 
largely  on  the  modern  jetty  system. 

On  September  14,  1712,  a  grant  was  made  by  Louis  XIV  to  Antoine  de 
Crozat,  a  rich  merchant  of  Paris,  for  trading  purposes.  The  King  in  this  grant 
says : 

we  did  in  the  year  1683  give  our  orders  to  undertake  a  discovery  of  the  countries  and 
lands  which  are  situated  in  the  northern  part  of  America,  between  Vew  France  and  New  Mexico:  and 
the  Sieur  de  la  Salle,  to  whom  we  committed  that  enterprise,  having  had  success  enough  to  confirm  a 
belief  that  communication  might  be  settled  from  New  France  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  by  means  of 
large  rivers;  this  obliged  us,  immediately  after  the  peace  of  Ryswick,  to  give  orders  for  the  estab 
lishing  of  a  colony  there,  and  maintaining  a  garrison,  which  has  kept  and  preserved  the  possession 
we  had  taken  in  the  very  year  1683,  of  the  lands,  coasts,  and  islands,  which  are  situated  in  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico,  between  Carolina  on  the  east,  and  Old  and  New  Mexico  on  the  west.  *  *  And 

whereas,  upon  the  information  we  have  received,  concerning  the  disposition  and  situation  of  the  said 
countries,  known  at  present  by  the  name  of  the  province  of  Louisiana,  we  are  of  opinion  that  there 
may  be  established  therein  a  considerable  commerce  *  *  we  have  resolved  to  grant  the  com 
merce  of  the  country  of  Louisiana  to  the  sieur  Anthony  Crozat. 

The  further  language  of  this  grant  sheds  more  light  in  identifying  the  limits 
of  this  province  in  these  words: 

and  do  appoint  the  said  sieur  Crozat,  solely  to  carry  on  a  trade  in  all  the  lands,  possessed  by 
us,  and  bounded  by  New  Mexico,  and  by  the  lands  of  the  English  Carolina,  *  *  *  the  river  of 


155. 


S^p5fc=feje£-- 


*^     ^%  6_.Yvit^ 


£f*/cro~^lr^Suaifl^^S—  ~Zi^ 

-'V  . — — 'e\        \r-—  .^3*o      '   t«— _  ^-  -^  "    5^=\ 


TH i'  GREAT 


OF  A/XIP  ^x  HERMAN  MOLL, ENGLISH  GEOGRAPHER, 

PUBLISHED   IN  LONDON.  ABOUT  THE  YEAR    I7IO. 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  15 

St.  Lewis,  heretofore  called  Mississippi,  from  the  edge  of  the  sea,  as  far  as  the  Illinois,  together  with 
the  river  of  St.  Philip,  heretofore  called  the  Missourys,  *  *  *  with  all  the  countries,  territories, 
lakes  within  land,  and  the  rivers  which  fall  directly  or  indirectly  into  that  part  of  the  river  St.  Lewis. 
i.  Our  pleasure  is  that  all  the  aforesaid  lands,  streams,  rivers  and  islands,  be  and  remain 
comprised  under  the  name  of  the  government  of  Louisiana,  which  shall  be  dependent  upon  the 
general  government  of  New  France,  *  *  *  * 

A  map  published  about  1710  by  Moll,  the  English  geographer,  represents 
Louisiana  to  be  as  Louis  XIV  describes  it.  To  the  east  and  along  the  Gulf  coast 
the  country  containing  the  Carolinas  is  marked  as  British  Empire.  On  the 
west,  as  a  boundary,  is  New  Mexico  and  Old  Mexico,  while  on  the  north  is  New 
France,  Lake  Huron,  and  LTpper  Lake  (Superior).  A  portion  of  the  western 
boundary  is  shown  as  the  "North  River"  (Del  Norte  river).  The  more  north 
western  boundaries  are  represented  by  the  highlands  at  the  sources  of  the  Missis 
sippi  and  the  Missouri,  marked  on  the  map,  respectively,  as  the  rivers  St.  Louis 
and  St.  Philip.  Nothing  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  is  designated  as  Louisiana, 
and  all  north  of  California  is  marked  as  "Unknown  Parts." 

In  a  later  map,  and  before  1762,  published  by  Thomas  Bowen,  entitled  "An 
accurate  map  of  North  America  from  the  best  authorities,"  the  country  north  of 
Cape  Blanco  (on  the  Oregon  coast)  is  marked  as  '  '  Unknown,  '  '  while  that  east  of 
the  Rio  del  Norte  and  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  the  country  drained  by  the  waters 
of  the  Missouri  and  Mississippi  and  as  far  east  as  the  "Apalachan  Mountains"  is 
marked  as  Louisiana,  while  Florida,  Georgia,  Carolina,  Virginia  and  Pennsyl 
vania,  to  the  east  of  these  mountains,  are  all  excluded  from  the  boundaries  of 
Louisiana.  This  map  will  be  found  in  Brooks's  Gazetteer,  ist  edition,  1762.  As 
showing  Jefferson's  knowledge  as  to  what  constituted  Louisiana,  his  letter  to 
Mellish,  the  geographer,  is  submitted,  as  follows  : 


,  December  js,  1816. 
To  Mr.  Mr-;  LUSH. 

"SiR,  —  Your  favor  of  November  23d,  after  a  very  long  passage,  is  received,  and  with  it  the  map 
which  you  have  been  so  kind  as  to  send  me,  for  which  I  return  you  many  thanks.  It  is  handsomely 
executed,  and  on  a  well  chosen  scale;  giving  a  luminous  view  of  the  comparative  possession  of  differ 
ent  powers  in  our  America.  It  is  on  account  of  the  value  I  set  on  it,  that  I  will  make  some 
suggestions. 

By  the  charter  of  Louis  XIV.  all  the  country  comprehending  the  waters  which  flow  into  the 
Mississippi,  was  made  a  part  of  Louisiana.  Consequently  its  northern  boundary  was  the  summit  of 
the  highlands  in  which  its  northern  waters  rise. 

But  by  the  Xth  Art.  of  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht,  France  and  England  agreed  to  appoint  commis 
sioners  to  settle  the  boundary  between  their  possessions  in  that.  quarter,  and  those  commissioners  set 
tled  it  at  the  49th  degree  of  latitude.  See  Hutchinson's  Topographical  Description  of  Louisiana,  p.  7. 
This  it  was  which  induced  the  British  Commissioners,  in  settling  the  boundary  with  us,  to  follow  the 
northern  water  line  to  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  at  the  latitude  of  49°,  and  then  go  off  on  that  parallel. 
This,  then,  is  the  true  northern  boundary  of  Louisiana. 

The  western  boundary  of  Louisiana  is,  rightfully,  the  Rio  Bravo,  (its  main  stream,)  from  its 
mouth  to  its  source,  and  thence  along  the  highlands  and  mountains  dividing  the  waters  of  the  Mis 
sissippi  from  those  of  the  Pacific.  The  usurpations  of  Spain  on  the  east  side  of  that  river,  have  induced 
geographers  to  suppose  the  Puerco  or  Salado  to  be  the  boundary.  The  line  along  the  highlands 
stands  on  the  charter  of  Louis  XIV.  that  of  the  Rio  Bravo,  on  the  circumstance  that,  when  La  Salle 


l6  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

took  possession  of  the  Bay  of  St.  Bernard,  Pannco  was  the  nearest  possession  of  Spain,  and  the  Rio 
Bravo  the  natural  half  way  boundary  between  them. 

On  the  waters  of  the  Pacific,  we  can  found  no  claim  in  right  of  Louisiana.  If  we  claim  that  coun 
try  at  all,  it  must  be  on  Astor's  settlement  near  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia,  and  the  principle  of  the 
jus  gentium  of  America,  that  when  a  civilized  nation  takes  possession  of  the  mouth  of  a  river  in  a  new 
country,  that  possession  is  considered  as  including  all  its  waters. 

The  line  of  latitude  of  the  southern  source  of  the  Multnomat  might  be  claimed  as  appurtenant 
to  Astoria.  For  its  northern  boundary,  I  believe  an  understanding  has  been  come  to  between  our 
government  and  Russia,  which  might  be  known  from  some  of  its  members.  I  do  not  know  it. 

Although  the  irksomeness  of  writing,  which  you  may  perceive  from  the  present  letter,  and  its 
labor,  oblige  me  now  to  withdraw  from  letter  writing,  yet  the  wish  that  your  map  should  set  to  rights 
the  ideas  of  our  own  countrymen,  as  well  as  foreign  nations,  as  to  our  correct  boundaries,  has  induced 
me  to  make  these  suggestions,  that  you  may  bestow  on  them  whatever  inquiry  they  may  merit. 
I  salute  you  with  esteem  and  respect. 

Perhaps  the  most  noted  map  of  this  period  is  that  by  the  French  engineer, 
Louis  Franquelin,  previously  mentioned  herein,  which  was  published  as  early  as 
1684,  following  the  possession  by  France;  and  there  is  outlined  on  this  map  the 
boundaries  of  Louisiana  nearly  as  claimed  by  Louis  XIV,  and  these  limits  were 
justified  by  the  recognized  authority  of  those  days,  which  gave  to  the  discoverer  of 
the  mouth  of  a  river  the  whole  country  drained  by  it. 

Justin  Winsor,  in  his  Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America,  in  comment 
ing  on  that  law  as  applied  to  the  discovery  of  the  Mississippi,  says: 

By  this  the  French  claim  was  bounded  by  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  westward  to  the  Rio  Grande ; 
thence  northward  to  the  rather  vague  watershed  of  what  we  now  know  as  the  Rocky  Mountains, 
with  an  indefinite  line  along  the  source  of  the  Upper  Mississippi  and  its  higher  affluents,  bounding 
on  the  height  of  land  which  shut  off  the  valley  of  the  Great  Lakes  until  the  Appalachians  were 
reached.  Following  these  mountains  south,  the  line  skirted  the  northern  limits  of  Spanish  Florida, 
and  then  turned  to  the  Gulf.  *  *  *  At  the  north  the  head  waters  of  the  great  river  were  still 
unknown,  and  long  to  remain  so. 

The  province  which  was  granted  to  Crozat  was  by  him  surrendered  back 
September  6,  1/17,  and  his  colony  abandoned.  The  same  year  another  grant  was 
made  to  the  Mississippi  Commercial  Company,  under  the  regency  of  the  Duke  of 
Orleans.  This  was  the  celebrated  John  Law's  Mississippi  scheme.  This  charter 
was  later  on  also  surrendered.  This,  then,  was  the  original  and  only  Louisiana, 
and  it  is  seen  that  no  country  is  included  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains.  France 
claimed  nothing  beyond,  and  the  country  known  as  Louisiana  was  recognized  by 
the  bounds  already  mentioned.  For  nearly  eighty  years  following  La  Salle's 
discovery  the  country  named  by  him  as  Louisiana  remained  intact  as  French 
possessions;  but  its  dismemberment  and  change  of  sovereignty  was  near  at  hand. 
If  this  territory  was  Louisiana,  as  we  thus  far  understood  the  boundaries,  and  such 
as  France  had  claimed,  could  it  not  be  contended  to  be  the  same  Louisiana  that 
was  ceded  to  Spain?  Was  it  not  Spanish  domain  from  the  moment  the  cession  was 
signed  and  ratified  ?  A  study  of  the  treaties,  however,  which  are  to  follow,  will 
convev  that  territorv  to  different  sovereignties. 


in 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE. 


FRANCE    CEDES    TO    SPAIN. 

•The  treaty  between  France  and  Spain  of  November  3,  1762,  was  the  firsimove 
change  of  sovereignty.      In  that  treaty  the  granting  words  are: 

his  Most  Christian  Majesty  cedes  in  entire  possession,  purely  and  simply,  without  exception,  to 
his  Catholic  Majesty  and  his  successors  in  perpetuity,  all  the  country  known  under  the  name  of 
Louisiana,  as  well  as  New  Orleans  and  the  island  in  which  that  place  stands. 

This  was  made  subject  to  the  later  approval  and  acceptance  of  the  Spanish 
King.  On  the  i3th  of  the  same  month  the  acceptance  was  made  final. 

This  treaty  between  the  two  monarchs  was  never  known  publicly  in  the  United 
States  until  seventy  years  after,  and  until  published,  in  1837,  in  the  appendix  to 
Gales  &  Seaton's  Reports  of  Debates,  Twenty-fourth  Congress,  second  session, 
volume  13.  This  will  account  for  the  misunderstanding1  among  so  many  of  our 
public  men  in  the  time  of  Jefferson's  administration  as  to  the  exact  territory 
which  belonged  to  either  France  or  Spain. 

The  orders  for  the  surrender  of  Louisiana,  with  New  Orleans  and  the  island, 
were  not  issued  at  Versailles  until  April  21,  1764. 

By  reference  to  the  treaty  it  will  be  observed  that  the  cession  to  Spain  merely 
refers  to  the  transfer  as  "the  country  known  under  the  name  of  Louisiana,  together 
with  New  Orleans  and  the  island  on  which  that  city  stands."  There  is  no 
other  description  or  designation.  Whether  Spain  claimed  Florida  west  to  the 
Iberville,  or  how  far  north  along  the  Mississippi,  and  north  of  the  thirty-first 
degree  of  latitude,  or  how  far  France  claimed  for  Louisiana  east  of  the  Iberville, 
or  anything  between  the  Mississippi  and  the  Florida  country — all  these  were  matters 
of  uncertainty  and  contention.  By  another  move  at  the  same  time  this  uncertainty 
was  attempted  to  be  cleared.  The  cession  to  Spain  of  Louisiana  was  accompanied, 
or,  it  should  more  properly  be  said,  was  followed,  by  the  adjustment  and  agreement 
known  in  history  as  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  which  was  concluded  February  10,  1763, 
between  Great  Britain  and  Portugal  on  the  one  part,  and  Spain  and  France  on  the 
other,  in  which  France  ceded  to  Great  Britain  Nova  Scotia  (or  Acadia),  Canada 
with  all  its  dependencies,  the  island  of  Cape  Breton  and  also  all  the  other  islands 
and  coasts  on  the  Gulf  and  River  St.  Lawrence.  The  same  treaty  further  fixed 
the  boundary  or  confines  between  the  British  and  French  possessions  by  a  "line 
drawn  along  the  middle  of  the  river  Mississippi,  from  its  source  to  the  river 
Iberville,  and  from  thence  by  a  line  drawn  along  the  middle  of  this  river,  and 
the  lakes  Maurepas  and  Pontchartrain,  to  the  sea,"  and  then  the  treaty  makes  to 
Great  Britain  still  another  cession:  "the  river  and  port  of  Mobile,  and  every 
thing  which  he  possesses,  or  ought  to  possess,  on  the  left  side  of  the  river  Missis 
sippi,  except  the  town  of  New  Orleans  and  the  island  in  which  it  is  situated,  which 
shall  remain  to  France."  There  was  an  important  clause  in  the  treaty  which 
later  gave  rise  to  much  misunderstanding  wherein  it  was  ' '  provided  that  the  nav- 

2239 2 


1 8  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

igation  of  the  river  Mississippi  shall  be  equally  free,  as  well  to  the  subjects  of 
Great  Britain  as  to  those  of  France,  in  its  whole  breadth  and  length,  from  its 
source  to  the  sea,  and  expressly  that  part  which  is  between  the  said  island  of  New 
Orleans  and  the  right  bank  of  that  river,  as  well  as  the  passage  both  in  and  out 
of  its  mouth.  It  is  further  stipulated;  that  the  vessels  belonging  to  the  subjects  of 
either  nation  shall  not  be  stopped,  visited  or  subjected  to  the  payment  of  any  duty 
whatever. ' ' 

LOUISIANA    A    TROUBLESOME   AND   EXPENSIVE    PROVINCE. 

Louisiana  had  been  a  source  of  infinite  trouble  and  expense  to  France.  From 
the  first  effort  at  colonization,  insubordination,  discord  and  malfeasance  among 
those  in  authority  continued  to  exist,  while  the  maintenance  of  troops  and  the 
expensive  contributions  of  merchandise  constantly  made  to  the  Indian  tribes 
in  proximity  (who  demanded  such  supplies  as  a  condition  of  peace  with  the 
colonists  and  of  their  alliance  in  time  of  conflict  against  the  English),  were  all 
very  costly  to  the  home  government.  The  colony  had  proven  in  all  things  to  be 
very  unprofitable.  Crozat,  the  rich  and  calculating  merchant,  found  it  to  be  a  loss 
even  as  a  present,  and  he  gladly  relinquished  his  grant.  The  India  or  Law  Com 
pany  lost  twenty  millions  in  expensive  schemes  to  develop  a  commerce  under  its 
chartered  privileges.  It  is  conceded  that  the  French  government  squandered  over 
forty  millions  of  livres  in  colonization  efforts  in  Louisiana.  It  was  such  discour 
agements  as  made  France  willing  and  anxious  to  cede  to  Spain  all  her  interest  in 
such  possessions,  and  to  release  herself  from  the  further  obligation  of  bearing  an 
increasing  financial  burden.  The  transfer  to  Spain  was  delayed  until  after  the 
portion  east  of  the  Mississippi  had  been  surrendered  to  the  English.  It  was  this 
delay  which  led  the  French  colonists  west  of  the  river  to  hope  that  they  would 
continue  to  remain  on  French  territory.  The  official  notice  of  Louis  XV,  dated 
April  21,  1764,  to  the  French  governor,  D' Abbadie,  and  received  in  October,  1764, 
to  deliver  possession  to  the  Spaniards,  dispelled  all  further  hope  of  the  colonists, 
and  they  submitted  with  indignation  and  humiliation.  It  was  not,  however,  until 
March  5,  1766,  that  the  Spanish  governor,  Antonio  de  Ulloa,  with  two  companies 
of  infantry,  arrived  at  New  Orleans.  He  had  intended  to  defer  taking  complete 
possession  until  the  arrival  of  the  Spanish  troops.  He  met,  to  his  surprise,  a 
sullen  reception  from  the  citizens,  though  he  had  achieved  great  renown  before 
the  world.  He  was  an  eminent  scholar  and  writer,  and  a  famous  sailor,  having 
attained  the  grade  of  lieutenant-general  of  the  royal  navies  of  Spain.  Few  men 
at  the  time  of  his  death  had  contributed  so  much  to  the  general  knowledge  and 
scientific  advancement  of  a  nation  as  De  Ulloa.  The  knowledge  of  platina,  of 
electricity,  of  artificial  magnetism,  of  engraving  and  printing,  was  greatly  advanced 
by  the  researches  of  this  man.  He  was  also  a  great  promoter  of  astronomy.  In 
Spain  the  credit  is  given  him  of  having  discovered  the  secret  of  manufacturing 
superfine  cloth  by  a  combination  of  the  churla  wool  with  the  merino;  and  in 


THE   LOUISIANA    PURCHASE.  19 

this  connection  he  founded  at  Segovia,  in  Spain,  a  manufactory  where  cloths  of 
remarkable  fineness  were  produced.  He  wras  a  benefactor  of  his  race  and  of  his 
time.  Looking  back  upon  that  remote  period  in  the  history  of  Louisiana  and 
upon  its  wild  and  undeveloped  state,  we  may  well  marvel  that  one  so  famed 
among  his  countrymen  should  have  consented  to  so  exile  himself  as  to  become 
the  first  governor  under  Spanish  rule  of  that  distant  and  distracted  colony.  The 
inhabitants,  however,  could  not  forget  that  they  were  French,  and  they  resented 
the  act  of  cession  which  transferred  them  and  their  territory  to  another  flag  and 
another  nationality  without  their  acquiescence  and  in  defiance  of  their  repeated 
protests.  They  could  not  become  reconciled,  however  distinguished  and  excellent 
the  Spanish  governor  who  was  to  represent  the  changed  sovereignty.  The  discon 
tent  manifested  itself  at  first  in  assemblages  of  the  people,  who  denounced  the 
treaty  of  cession.  This  was  followed  by  open  revolution.  De  Ulloa  was  forced 
to  seek  safety  in  the  Spanish  ship  which  lay  at  anchor  in  the  harbor.  The  limited 
military  force  was  powerless  to  protect  the  governor,  although  Aubry,  the  French 
governor-general  of  the  colony  under  the  French  authority,  exerted  every  influ 
ence  in  his  power  loyally  and  fearlessly  to  execute  the  mandate  of  his  sovereign— 
the  French  King — in  making  effective  the  cession  to  Spain.  On  the  ist  of 
November,  1768,  De  Ulloa  and  his  family  repaired  to  a  French  vessel  which  he 
had  chartered,  and  amid  the  derisive  shouts  of  the  people  and  their  patriotic  songs 
he  sailed  away  from  the  town  of  New  Orleans.  The  French  governor  was  com 
pelled  to  order  back  a  force  of  the  French  colonists  who  persisted  in  following  as 
far  as  the  French  fort  at  the  Balize,  there  to  oppose  any  Spanish  aid  entering  the 
river. 

Upon  Aubry 's  threat  to  fire  upon  the  insurgents  following  De  Ulloa' s  ship, 
they  desisted,  and  in  his  report  to  the  French  government  detailing  this  circum 
stance,  he  says:  "On  that  occasion  I  was  obeyed  for  the  first  time." 

The  people  attempted  to  vindicate  their  expulsion  of  De  Ulloa  with  various 
pretexts  detrimental  to  his  administration,  but  the  real  motive  is  too  plainly 
revealed  in  the  concluding  part  of  their  attempted  justification,  where  they  say : 
"What  harm  have  we  done  in  shaking  off  a  foreign  yoke  which  was  made  still 
more  heavy  and  crushing  by  the  hand  which  imposed  it?  What  offense  have  we 
committed  in  claiming  back  our  lawrs,  our  country,  our  sovereign,  and  in  conse 
crating  to  him  our  everlasting  love?"  They  appealed  to  the  King  to  annul  the 
cession  and  to  restore  to  them  French  sovereignty. 

The  weakness  of  France  which  prompted  the  cession  to  Spain  still  remained, 
however,  to  forbid  a  recession. 

The  Spanish  ministry  took  up  the  sedition  in  Louisiana.  But  one  minister 
advised  the  King  in  favor  of  receding  the  province  to  France.  The  council,  with 
this  exception,  while  admitting  the  antipathy  of  the  colonists  to  Spanish  rule,  and 
the  vast  expense  of  maintaining  local  government  with  no  corresponding  revenue 
to  follow,  held  that  for  State  policies  it  were  best  to  retain  the  cession.  The 
Mississippi  River  formed  a  line  of  demarcation  between  the  Spanish  and  the 


2O  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

English  possessions.  Between  Louisiana  and  Mexico  there  intervened  a  vast 
space  within  which  another  power  might  encroach  by  extending  its  frontier,  and 
thus  produce  incessant  controversy  with  Spain,  while  with  France  in  control  of 
Louisiana,  that  power  might  in  time  extend  itself  toward  Mexico  and  open  up  an 
illicit  trade  with  that  country,  as  was  previously  done ;  and  further,  in  the  event 
the  English  should  prevail  over  the  French,  it  might  be  to  the  interest  of  France, 
in  the  settlement  of  terms,  to  offer  Louisiana  to  the  English  nation,  which  would 
be  unfortunate  for  Spain  as  respects  her  Spanish  possessions  adjacent.  It  was 
therefore  determined  to  retain  the  cession,  and  while  reorganizing  the  local  gov 
ernment  upon  a  Spanish  foundation  it  was  proposed  to  visit  punishment  upon  the 
leaders  of  the  late  insurrection.  The  King  himself  expressed  a  firm  resolution  to 
recover  possession  and  to  repress  all  designs  against  his  authority  in  the  province. 
The  determination  of  the  government  was  made  painfully  manifest  to  the 
colonists  when,  on  July  24,  1/69,  there  appeared  before  New  Orleans  a  formidable 
Spanish  fleet  of  24  sail  and  a  force  of  2,600  men,  under  the  command  of  General 
O'Reilly,  a  famous  commander,  who  had  been  selected  to  receive  formal  possession 
of  Louisiana  and  defend  the  Spanish  possession.  The  first  act  after  the  formal 
cession  was  the  arrest  and  trial  of  the  leaders  of  the  late  revolution.  They  were 
found  guilty  and  some  cruelly  condemned  to  death,  some  were  sentenced  to  per 
petual  imprisonment  and  others  to  lesser  punishment,  while  as  to  all  confiscation 
of  property  was  adjudged. 

SPAIN   CEDES  FLORIDA  TO  GREAT  BRITAIN. 

By  another  section  of  the  treaty  of  1763,  Havana  and  the  whole  of  Cuba,  which 
then  belonged  to  Great  Britain,  were  restored  to  Spain,  and  in  return  therefor  Spain 
ceded  to  Great  Britain  "  Florida,  with  Fort  St.  Augustin  and  the  bay  of  Pensacola, 
as  well  as  all  that  Spain  possesses  on  the  continent  of  North  America  to  the  east  or 
to  the  southeast  of  the  river  Mississippi. ' ' 

If  it  were  true  that  the  cession  to  Spain  of  "the  country  known  under  the 
name  of  Louisiana,"  contained  West  Florida,  or  any  portion  east  of  the  Missis 
sippi  which  might  be  said  to  conflict  with  the  later  grant  from  France  to  Great 
Britain,  this  was  corrected  in  the  cession  by  Spain  to  Great  Britain  of  "all  that 
Spain  possesses  on  the  continent  of  North  America  to  the  east  of  or  to  the 
southeast  of  the  river  Mississippi." 

To  this  point  we  find  England  claiming  possession  of  all  that  France  pos 
sessed  to  the  east  or  southeast  of  the  Mississippi  and,  also,  all  that  Spain  possessed 
and  claimed  eastward  of  that  river.  Spain  retained  possession  of  her  recent  cession 
from  France  of  the  territory  situated  west  of  the  Mississippi,  with  the  city  and 
island  of  New  Orleans.  Great  Britain  now  became  possessed  of  the  Florida  ter 
ritory,  whatever  that  was,  of  the  French  territory  on  the  river  and  port  of  Mobile 
and  all  that  remained  of  the  original  Louisiana  of  La  Salle's  claim  east  of  the 
Mississippi.  This  rounded  out  England's  posesssions.  The  Atlantic  was  the 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  21 

eastern  boundary,  the  Mississippi  the  western,  and  the  Gulf  the  southern,  with 
her  Canadian  possessions  on  the  north.  It  will  be  noticed  how  possession  fol 
lowed  according  to  the  law  of  discovery.  The  Spaniards  claimed  Florida  through 
the  Tampa,  Pensacola  and  St.  Augustine  settlements  and  discoveries;  and  France 
claimed  the  country  drained  by  the  river  and  bay  of  Mobile,  and  the  greater 
country  drained  by  the  Mississippi,  on  like  grounds. 

Much  confusion  exists  in  the  popular  mind  as  to  the  treaties  between  the 
Great  Powers  in  1762  and  1763.  First  in  order  was  the  single  and  complete  ces 
sion  of  "  the  whole  country  known  by  the  name  of  Louisiana,"  by  and  on  the 
part  of  the  King  of  France  to  the  King  of  Spain.  This  was  November  3,  1762, 
and  is  known  in  history  as  the  "  Family  Compact,"  and  so  known  because  of  the 
agreement  between  the  two  monarchs  that  they  would  defend  each  other  in  their 
dominions  throughout  the  world,  and  would  regard  as  a  common  enemy  any  nation 
which  should  antagonize  either.  Second  in  order  was  the  treaty — about  three 
months  later — between  the  Kings  of  Great  Britain,  Portugal,  Spain  and  France, 
which  was  concluded  February  10,  1763,  known  as  the  Treaty  of  Paris  and  in 
which  the  King  of  France  cedes  "  everything  of  which  he  possesses  on  the  left 
side  of  the  river  Mississippi  "  to  Great  Britain.  Since,  in  all  the  claims  of  France 
previously  made,  the  country  of  Louisiana  was  understood  to  embrace  territory  on 
the  left  side  of  the  Mississippi,  as  well  as  on  the  right  side,  as  shown  in  the  grant 
to  Antoine  de  Crozat,  September  14,  1712,  by  Louis  XIV,  which  was  "bounded 
by  the  English  Carolinas  "  and  designated  as  a  part  of  "the  country  of  Louisiana," 
and  so  described  on  the  early  French  maps  and  by  French  explorers  and  French 
writers,  it  naturally  excites  surprise  that  in  the  face  of  the  cession  to  Spain  of  the 
"whole  country  known  as  Louisiana,"  there  should  also  be  ceded  a  part  of  that 
same  Louisiana  to  Great  Britain  a  few  months  later.  It  may  be  said  that  the 
treaty  of  November  3,  1762,  was  well  named  the  "  Secret  Treaty."  The  surprise 
is  the  greater  when  it  is  known  that  the  preliminaries  of  this  second  treaty  were 
actually  signed  on  the  same  day  as  that  ceding  "all  of  Louisiana  to  Spain." 

TALLEYRAND'S  EXPLANATION. 

That  we  may  also  have  before  us  the  justification  of  France  and  Spain  for 
such  evident  inconsistency,  if  not  deception,  it  may  be  of  interest  to  read  the 
letter  from  Talleyrand  to  General  Armstrong  after  the  cession,  and  thus  we  have 
both  sides  of  the  controversy  fairly  presented,  and  for  this  purpose  the  letter 
follows: 

[American  State  Papers  (foreign  relations),  vol.  2,  p.  635.     Letter  from  M.  Talleyrand  to  General  Armstrong.] 

PARIS,  December  21,  1804. 

SIR:  I  had  the  honor,  in  Brumaire  last,  to  inform  Mr.  Livingston  that  I  would  submit  to  the 
inspection  of  His  Imperial  Majesty  the  letters  he  addressed  to  me  relative  to  the  motives  of  Mr. 
Monroe's  journey  to  Spain,  and  some  discussions  between  the  Court  of  Madrid  and  the  United  States. 

Among  the  observations  made  on  this  subject  by  Messrs.  Livingston  and  Monroe,  His  Imperial 
Majesty  has  been  obliged  to  give  particular  attention  to  those  bearing  on  the  discussions,  of  which  the 


22  THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE. 

object  is  peculiarly  interesting  to  the  French  Government.  He  has  perceived  that  he  could  not  have 
been  a  stranger  to  the  examination  of  these  discussions,  since  they  grew  out  of  the  treaty  by  which 
France  had  ceded  Louisiana  to  the  United  States  ;  and  His  Majesty  has  thought  that  an  explanation, 
made  with  that  fidelity  which  characterizes  him,  on  the  eastern  boundaries  of  the  ceded  territory, 
would  put  an  end  to  the  differences  to  which  this  cession  has  given  rise. 

France  in  giving  up  Louisiana  to  the  United  States,  transferred  to  them  all  the  rights  over  that 
colony  which  she  had  acquired  from  Spain;  she  could  not,  nor  did  she  wish  to,  cede  any  other;  and, 
that  no  room  might  be  left  for  doubt  in  this  respect,  she  repeated,  in  her  treaty  of  3oth  April,  1803,  the 
literal  expressions  of  the  treaty  of  St.  Ildefonso,  by  which  she  had  acquired  that  colony  two  years  before. 

Now  it  was  stipulated,  in  her  treaty  of  the  year  1801,  that  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana  by  France 
was  a  retrocession;  that  is  to  say,  that  Spain  restored  to  France  what  she  has  received  from  her  in 
1762.  At  that  period  she  had  received  the  territory  bounded'  on  east  by  the  Mississippi,  the  river 
Iberville  and  the  lakes  Maurepas  and  Pontchartrain;  the  same  day  France  ceded  to  England,  by  the 
preliminaries  of  peace,  all  the  territory  to  the  eastward.  Of  this  Spain  had  received  no  part,  and  could, 
therefore  give  back  none  to  France. 

All  the  territory  lying  to  the  eastward  of  the  Mississippi  and  the  river  Iberville,  and  south  of  the 
32d  degree  of  north  latitude,  bears  the  name  of  Florida.  It  has  been  constantly  designated  in  that 
way  during  the  time  that  Spain  held  it ;  it  bears  the  same  name  in  the  treaties  of  limits  between  Spain 
and  the  United  States ;  and,  in  different  notes  of  Mr.  Livingston  of  a  later  date  than  the  treaty  of 
retrocession,  in  which  the  name  of  Louisiana  is  given  to  the  territory  on  the  west  side  of  the  Mississippi ; 
of  Florida  to  that  on  the  east  of  it. 

According  to  this  designation,  thus  consecrated  by  time,  and  even  prior  to  the  period  when  Spain 
began  to  possess  the  W7hole  territory  between  the  3ist  degree,  the  Mississippi,  and  the  sea,  this  country 
ought,  in  good  faith  and  justice,  to  be  distinguished  from  Louisiana. 

Your  excellency  knows  that  before  the  preliminaries  of  1762,  confirmed  by  the  treaty  of  1763,  the 
French  possessions,  situated  near  the  Mississippi,  extended  as  far  from  the  east  of  this  river,  towards 
the  Ohio  and  the  Illinois,  as  in  the  quarters  of  Mobile  ;  and  you  must  think  it  as  unnatural,  after  all 
the  changes  of  sovereignty  which  that  part  of  America  has  undergone,  to  give  the  name  of  Louisiana 
to  the  district  of  Mobile,  as  to  the  territory  more  to  the  north,  on  the  same  bank  of  the  river,  which 
formerly  belonged  to  France. 

These  observations,  sir,  will  be  sufficient  to  dispel  every  kind  of  doubt,  with  regard  to  the  extent 
of  the  retrocession  made  by  Spain  to  France,  in  the  month  of  Vendemiaire,  year  9.  It  was  under  this 
impression  that  the  French  and  Spanish  plenipotentiaries  negotiated,  and  it  was  under  this  impression 
that  I  have  since  had  occasion  to  give  the  necessary  explanations  when  a  project  was  formed  to  take 
possession  of  it.  I  have  laid  before  His  Imperial  Majesty  the  negotiations  of  Madrid  which  preceded 
the  treaty  of  1801,  and  His  Majesty  is  convinced  that,  during  the  whole  course  of  these  negotiations,  the 
Spanish  Government  has  constantly  refused  to  cede  any  part  of  the  Floridas,  even  from  the  Mississippi 
to  Mobile. 

His  Imperial  Majesty  has,  moreover,  authorized  me  to  declare  to  you,  that,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  year  1 1 ,  General  Bournonville  was  charged  to  open  a  newr  negotiation  with  Spain  for  the  acquisition 
of  the  Floridas.  This  project,  which  has  not  been  followed  by  any  treaty,  is  an  evident  proof  that 
France  had  not  acquired,  by  the  treaty  retroceding  Louisiana,  the  country  east  of  the  Mississippi. 

The  candor  of  these  observations  proves  to  you,  sir,  how  much  value  His  Majesty  attaches  to  the 
maintenance  of  a  good  understanding  between  two  Powers,  to  whom  France  is  united  by  connexions 
so  intimate  and  so  numerous.  His  Majesty  called  upon  to  give  explanations  on  a  question  which 
interested  France  directly,  persuades  himself  that  they  will  leave  no  ground  of  misunderstanding 
between  the  United  States  and  Spain  ;  and  that  these  two  Powers,  animated,  as  they  ought  to  be,  by 
sentiments  of  friendship  which  their  vicinity  and  their  position  render  so  necessary,  will  be  able  to 
agree  with  the  same  facility  on  the  other  subjects  of  their  discussion. 

This  result  His  Imperial  Majesty  will  learn  with  real  interest.  He  saw  with  pain  the  United 
States  commence  their  differences  with  Spain  in  an  unusual  manner,  and  conduct  themselves  towards 
the  Floridas  by  acts  of  violence  which  not  being  founded  in  right,  could  have  no  other  effect  but  to 
injure  its  lawful  owners.  *  *  * 

[77m  letter  not  quoted  infill/.'] 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  23 

THE  FLORIDAS  RETROCEDED  TO  SPAIN. 

Twenty  years  later  (on  September  3,  1783)  another  treaty  was  consummated 
in  which  Great  Britain  and  Spain  were  again  contracting  parties,  wherein  Great 
Britain,  in  consideration  for  an  exchange  of  the  Bahama  Islands,  owned  by  Spain, 
re-ceded  to  that  nation  East  and  West  Florida  ;  and  thus  for  the  second  time  Spain 
became  possessed  of  Florida.  Further  on  it  will  be  important  to  remember  that 
in  all  the  cessions  and  retrocessions  between  the  different  claimants  to  the  Missis 
sippi  country,  Spain  acquired  from  France  no  interest  to  any  country  east  of  the 
Mississippi  and  the  island  and  city  of  New  Orleans.  What  Spain  acquired  in  that 
quarter  was  from  a  different  source  entirely.  It  is  also  well  to  remember  that 
France  had  disposed  of  all  her  possessions  on  both  sides  of  the  river.  She  con 
veyed  to  Spain  "all  the  country  known  under  the  name  of  Louisiana,  as  well  as 
New  Orleans  and  the  island  on  which  that  place  stands,"  and  conveyed  to  Britain 
all  her  possessions  "on  the  left  side  of  the  river  Mississippi,"  except  the  island 
and  city  of  New  Orleans.  If  Great  Britain  held  any  portion  of  Louisiana  under 
the  cession  from  Spain  of  West  Florida  (and,  under  Spain's  claim,  such  portion 
may  have  been  included),  then,  by  the  retrocession,  Spain  became  repossessed  of 
so  much  of  the  Louisiana  which  France  had  possessed. 

THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  SPAIN. 

The  war  of  our  revolution  coming  on,  and  the  colonies  having  succeeded 
against  Great  Britain,  the  United  States  now  appear  in  history  as  a  nation,  to 
contest  with  her  neighbors  for  adjustment  of  boundary  lines  which  before  were 
undetermined,  and  on  October  27,  1/95,  a  treaty  was  entered  into  between  our 
nation  and  Spain  in  which  it  was  agreed  that  "the  southern  boundary  of  the  United 
States,  which  divides  their  territory  from  the  Spanish  colonies  of  East  and  West 
Florida,  shall  be  designated  by  a  line  beginning  on  the  river  Mississippi  at  the 
northernmost  part  of  the  thirty-first  degree  of  latitude  north  of  the  equator,  which 
from  thence  shall  be  drawn  due  east  to  the  middle  of  the  river  Apalachicola  or 
Catahouchie;  thence  along  the  middle  thereof  to  its  junction  with  the  Flint; 
thence  straight  to  the  head  of  St.  Marys  river,  and  thence  down  the  middle 
thereof  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean." 

While  this  settled  how  far  north  Spain  might  extend  her  Florida  boundary, 
no  occasion  then  existed  for  determining  the  western  boundary,  as  Spain  owned 
on  both  sides  of  the  Mississippi.  What  was  claimed  as  West  Florida  became  a 
source  of  trouble  later  on.  Spain  and  the  United  States  were  now  the  only 
neighbors. 

AMERICAN    SETTLEMENTS. 

The  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  —  By  gradual  advances  the  course  of 
American  empire  at  last  spread  as  far  westward  as  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi ; 
and  by  various  treaties  with  foreign  nations  and  with  Indian  tribes,  the  supre- 


24  THE   LOUISIANA    PURCHASE. 

macy  of  the  infant  republic  had  already  reached  the  "father  of  waters."  Beyond 
was  Spanish  territory.  The  mouth  of  that  great  river  was  under  foreign  control. 
Spain  possessed  both  banks  at  that  point.  Our  line  of  settlements  depended 
upon  that  river  as  a  highway  to  the  markets.  Their  products  must  pass  out 
through  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi.  The  free  navigation  of  this  river  was 
therefore  a  matter  of  vital  concern.  There  was  but  one  interest,  one  demand, 
one  hope  and  one  expression  on  the  part  of  every  American  in  that  portion  of  the 
extended  empire,  and  that  was  for  the  free  right  of  way  over  these  waters  from 
the  head  of  navigation  to  the  sea.  That  spirit  of  resistance  to  intervening 
obstacles,  coupled  with  love  of  right  and  freedom  which  characterized  the  builders 
of  our  nation,  and  which  went  with  the  advance  immigration  into  the  forest  wilds 
and  upon  the  desert  plains,  asserted  itself  in  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi  and 
demanded  a  free  outlet.  Whenever  this  right  had  been  granted  it  was  only  of  a 
temporary  nature,  and  even  then  permitted  with  reluctance  and  under  restriction. 
When,  therefore,  it  was  rumored  that  Spain  had  ceded  Louisiana  to  France,  fears 
were  at  once  aroused  lest  the  French  should  exercise  even  a  more  exclusive  and 
vigorous  policy  than  had  the  Spaniards,  from  whom,  by  the  treaty  of  October  27, 
1795,  a  right  was  secured  to  deposit  the  merchandise  and  effects  of  the  Americans 
at  New  Orleans  for  the  space  of  three  years,,  and  at  the  end  of  that  period  the 
agreement  stipulated  that  "the  privilege  should  either  be  continued  at  New 
Orleans  or  an  equivalent  establishment  assigned  on  another  part  of  the  banks  of 
the  Mississippi."  Even  after  the  lapse  of  the  three  years  a  tacit  permission 
continued.  The  Spaniards  declined  to  believe  the  reported  cession  of  the  province 
to  France,  but  resolved  if  it  were  true  not  to  relinquish  their  authority  without 
protest. 

Following  this  came  the  announcement  that  the  Spanish  intendant  had 
proclaimed  that  the  right  of  deposit  no  longer  existed.  This  produced  an 
outburst  of  intense  indignation  from  the  Americans,  and  remonstrance  came  from 
the  settlers  and  planters  on  lands  tributary  to  the  Mississippi.  It  was  at  once 
assumed  that  the  Spanish  revocation  was  a  result  of  the  cession  to  France,  and, 
further,  that  it  was  secretly  prompted  in  advance  by  the  latter  power.  This 
naturally  made  the  cession  to  France  the  more  obnoxious.  Angry  and  excited 
appeals  and  urgent  petitions  were  addressed  to  Congress.  The  conclusion  was 
everywhere  irresistible  that  a  policy  of  exclusion  was  to  be  the  order  which 
would  mean  the  extinction  of  American  commerce  and  navigation  rights  along 
the  Mississippi  and  the  abandonment  of  flourishing  communities  already  estab 
lished  there.  That  feeling  so  inherent  in  the  American  breast  of  resistance  to 
arbitrary  power  began  to  assert  itself.  "The  Mississippi  is  ours  by  the  law  of 
nature,"  the  inhabitants  proclaimed.  Proceeding  still  further  they  threatened 
in  their  remonstrance:  "If  Congress  refuses  us  effectual  protection,  if  it  forsakes 
us,  we  will  adopt  the  measures  which  our  safety  requires,  even  if  they  endanger 
the  peace  of  the  Union  and  our  connection  with  the  other  States.  No  protection, 
no  allegiance. " 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE.  25 


POPULAR     DISCONTENT. 

The  people  in  the  older  States  along  the  Atlantic  seaboard  caught  np  the  cry 
from  their  relatives  and  fellow-countrymen  on  the  then  distant  frontiers  of  Ohio, 
Kentucky,  Tennessee  and  Indiana,  and  emphasized  the  demand  on  Congress  and 
on  the  President  for  relief  through  negotiation,  or,  if  that  failed,  by  war.  It  became 
a  party  issue.  President  Jefferson  foresaw  the  growing  discontent,  and  endeav 
ored  to  allay  the  excitement  by  assurance  of  every  possible  effort  on  his  part  as  the 
nation's  Executive.  He  transmitted  to  Congress,  December  22,  1802,  a  message 
in  which  he  said  "that  he  was  aware  of  the  obligation  to  maintain  in  all  cases 
the  rights  of  the  nation,  and  to  employ  for  that  purpose  those  just  and  honorable 
means  which  belong  to  the  character  of  the  United  States."  In  a  reply  from  the 
House  of  Representatives,  that  body  reminded  the  President  that  they  held  it  to 
be  their  duty  "to  express  their  unalterable  determination  to  maintain  the  bound 
aries  and  the  rights  of  navigation  and  commerce  through  the  river  Mississippi  as 
established  by  existing  treaties." 

ATTEMPTS   TO   SECURE    COMMERCIAL    PRIVILEGES. 

The  President  in  the  meanwhile  had  been  active.  Through  Charles  Pinck- 
ney,  the  minister  of  the  United  States  to  Madrid,  he  offered  to  purchase  of  Spain 
that  nation's  possessions  on  the  east  side  of  the  Mississippi,  and  as  a  further 
inducement,  and  in  the  event  of  purchase,  the  United  States  offered  to  guarantee 
the  Spanish  dominions  beyond  the  Mississippi.  Jefferson  instructed  Pinckney  to 
say  to  the  Spanish  monarch  : 

The  anxiety  of  our  Government  on  the  subject  of  possessing  the  territory  on  the  east  side  of  the 
Mississippi,  the  importance  of  this  acquisition  to  them  for  the  purpose  of  securing  to  the  citizens  of 
one-half  of  the  United  States  the  certain  means  of  exporting  their  products,  feel  them 

selves  every  day  more  convinced  of  their  having  a  permanent  establishment  on  the  Mississippi,  con 
venient  for  the  purposes  of  navigation,  and  belonging  solely  to  them. 

The  Spanish  Government  declined  this  offer,  and  even  refused  the  further 
request  that  a  mercantile  agent  of  the  United  States  be  permitted  to  reside  at 
New  Orleans,  the  answer  being:  "That  by  making  one  example  of  that  kind 
the  door  would  be  opened  for  like  demands  on  the  part  of  other  nations."  This 
refusal  was  dated  April  7,  1802,  more  than  one  year  and  a  half  after  the  secret 
treaty  ceding  Louisiana  with  New  Orleans  to  France  (October  i,  1800).  Though 
Mr.  Pinckney  was  at  the  court  of  Spain,  and  diplomatic  correspondence  had 
passed  between  him  and  that  court  as  to  our  anxiety  concerning  the  free  naviga 
tion  of  the  Mississippi,  yet  the  cession  to  France  was  not  even  hinted  to  him,  and 
he,  as  well  as  Mr.  Jefferson,  still  supposed  Spain  to  own  both  sides  of  that  river 
at  its  mouth. 


26  THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE. 

SPAIN    RETROCEDES    TO    FRANCE. 

The  next  important  change  in  the  relations  of  Louisiana  was  in  the  retro 
cession  from  Spain  to  France  in  the  treaty  known  as  the  "treaty  of  San  Ildefonso," 
October  i,  1800.  Spain  had  held  possession  for  thirty-eight  years.  The  Duke  of 
Parma,  a  soti-in-law  of  the  King  of  Spain,  was  desirous  of  securing  for  himself 
the  succession  to  the  Grand  Duchy  of  Tuscany,  that  he  should  be  raised  to  the 
dignity  of  a  king  and  have  his  dominions  enlarged  by  the  addition  of  Tuscany. 
In  consideration  of  France  giving  assurances  for  these  distinctions  and  enlarged 
territory  in  Italy,  Spain  agreed  to  cede  Louisiana. 

The  action  of  Spain  was  as  great  a  surprise  as  it  was  a  disappointment  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States.  Jefferson  voiced  the  popular  sentiment  when,  on 
December  15,  1802,  he  said  to  Congress:  "The  cession  of  the  Spanish  province 
of  Louisiana  to  France,  which  took  place  in  the  course  of  the  late  war,  will,  if 
carried  into  effect,  make  a  change  in  the  aspect  of  our  foreign  relations."  Our 
recent  commuuicatious  with  France  had  not  been  of  a  pleasant  character. 

Our  shipping  upon  the  high  seas  had  for  some  time  been  exposed  to  unex 
pected  depredations  by  French  cruisers.  Protest  after  protest  had  been  made  to 
the  French  government,  and  various  offers  for  amicable  terms  proposed,  but  with 
out  avail.  Washington  had  frequent  occasion  to  complain,  and  this  condition 
continued  into  the  administration  of  President  John  Adams,  who  sent  an  embassy 
to  France  in  1798  to  adjust  the  differences  between  the  two  nations.  The  French 
Directory  added  insult  to  injury  by  refusing  to  give  audience  to  the  embassy. 
Assurances  were  finally  given  that  upon  payment  of  a  liberal  sum  to  the  French 
government  and  a  gratuity  of  a  quarter  of  a  million  dollars  to  Talleyrand — who 
was  one  of  the  Directory — the  Americans  would  be  heard.  It  was  in  reply  to  this 
shameful  demand  that  Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney,  one  of  the  embassy,  made 
that  memorable  answer:  "Millions  for  defense,  but  not  one  cent  for  tribute,"  and 
with  his  colleagues,  John  Marshall  and  Elbridge  Gerry,  returned  to  their  own 
country.  This  outrage  was  met  by  Adams  in  preparations  for  war,  and  Washing 
ton,  then  in  retirement  at  Mount  Vernon,  was  requested  by  the  President  to  take 
command  of  our  armies.  He  accepted,  and  chose  his  friend  Alexander  Hamilton 
as  his  second  in  command.  The  promptness  and  determination  of  our  nation  to 
resent  the  long-suffered  abuses  upon  our  commerce  and  the  personal  indignities 
offered  our  accredited  diplomatic  representatives,  aroused  the  French  to  a  realiza 
tion  that  we  would  give  them  war,  unless  they  should  give  us  fair  dealing.  They 
chose  the  latter  alternative  and  terms  were  agreed  upon,  but  not  until  the  accession 
to  power  of  the  astute  First  Consul,  who  clearly  foresaw  the  complications  which 
his  predecessors  in  authority  had  invited  as  to  us  and  as  to  other  nations  with 
which  France  was  destined  to  engage  in  very  costly  and  unprofitable  wars. 

This  episode  in  the  dismissal  of  Pinckney,  Marshall  and  Gerry,  our  three 
special  envoys,  which  led  to  the  suspension  of  our  commercial  intercourse  with 
France,  when  added  to  the  well-known  reputation  of  Napoleon  for  aggressive 
demands  among  those  who  were  his  neighbors,  made  any  closer  relations  at  that 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  2  7 

time  with  him  or  his  nation  exceedingly  distasteful.      Mr.  Jefferson  preferred  that 
Spain  should  be  our  neighbor  rather  than  France. 

The  specific  words  of  the  retrocession  are  as  follows  : 

His  Catholic  Majesty  promises  and  engages  on  his  part  to  retrocede  to  the  French  Republic 
*  *  *  the  colony  or  province  of  Louisiana  with  the  same  extent  it  now  has  in  the  hands  of  Spain, 
and  that  it  had  when  France  possessed  it,  and  such  as  it  should  be  after  the  treaty  subsequently 
entered  into  between  Spain  and  other  States. 

The  actual  existence  of  the  retrocession  now  being  known  it  only  increased 
the  previous  ill  feeling  occasioned  by  the  mere  rumor.  The  exact  text  of  the 
treaty  of  Ildefonso,  however,  was  unknown  until  published  in  the  Memoir  by 
De  Onis  in  1820.  To  what  extent  did  France  recover  possession  of  Louisiana  as 
it  formerly  belonged  to  her?  This  was  the  question. 

To  still  more  complicate  the  situation,  war  between  France  and  England  was 
about  to  become  an  assured  fact.  It  was  therefore  determined  at  once  to  press 
negotiations  upon  France  for  terms.  The  exigency  seemed  to  require  the  best  effort 
and  the  best  talent,  and,  to  that  end,  James  Monroe  was  selected  to  cooperate  with 
Mr.  Livingston,  our  minister  to  Napoleon's  court.  In  addition  to  Mr.  Monroe's 
high  qualifications  he  was  specially  recommended  because  of  his  previous  attitude, 
while  a  Member  of  Congress  from  Virginia,  in  asserting  the  rights  of  the  western 
people  to  the  navigation  of  their  great  river.  It  became  very  evident  to  Mr. 
Jefferson  that  unless  a  favorable  result  was  secured  through  negotiation  a  resort 
must  be  had  to  war,  and  he  even  went  so  far  as  to  instruct  our  ministers  to  consult 
with  England  with  a  view  to  an  alliance  against  France.  His  language  to  Minister 
Livingston  is  significant: 

The  day  that  France  takes  possession  of  New  Orleans  fixes  the  sentence  which  is  to  restrain  her 
forever  within  her  low-water  mark.  It  seals  the  union  of  two  nations  who  in  conjunction  can  maintain 
exclusive  possession  of  the  ocean.  From  that  moment  we  must  marry  ourselves  to  the  British  fleet 
and  nation.  *  *  *  This  is  not  a  state  we  seek  or  desire.  It  is  one  which  this  measure,  if  adopted 
by  France,  forces  on  us  as  necessarily  as  any  other  cause,  by  the  laws  of  nature,  brings  on  its  necessary 
effect. 

The  anxiety  and  deep  feeling  which  possessed  Mr.  Jefferson  can  be  seen  in 
the  hurried  note  which  he  addressed  to  Mr.  Monroe : 

I  have  but  a  moment  to  inform  you  that  the  fever  into  which  the  western  mind  is  thrown  by  the 
affair  at  New  Orleans,  stimulated  by  the  mercantile  and  generally  the  federal  interest,  threatens  to 
overbear  our  peace.  *  * 

I  shall  to-morrow  nominate  you  to  the  Senate  for  an  extraordinary  mission  to  France. 
In  the  meantime  pray  work  night  and  day  to  arrange  your  affairs  for  a  temporary  absence,  perhaps 
for  a  long  one. 

A  few  days  later  he  again  wrote  him,  saying: 

The  agitation  of  the  public  mind  on  occasion  of  the  late  suspension  of  our  rights  of  deposit  at 
New  Orleans  is  extreme.  *  *  *  Remonstrances,  memorials,  etc.,  are'  now  circulating  through  the 
whole  of  the  country,  and  signing  by  the  body  of  the  people.  The  measures  which  we  have  been 
pursuing,  being  invisible,  do  not  satisfy  their  minds;  something  sensible,  therefore,  has  become 
necessary,  and,  indeed,  our  object  of  purchasing  New  Orleans  and  the  Floridas  is  a  measure  likely  to 
assume  so  many  shapes  that  no  instructions  could  be  squared  to  fit  them. 


28  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

NEW   ORLEANS   AND    FLORIDA    ARE    DEMANDED. 

Here  we  observe  the  first  distinct  demand  on  the  part  of  our  people.  To  have 
asked  more  would  have  been  extremely  unpopular  at  that  time.  Napoleon,  who 
was  now  confronted  with  the  certainty  of  a  gigantic  war  with  England,  well  knew 
that  colonies  far  distant  across  the  seas  must  be  protected  by  sufficient  naval  forces 
and  at  great  cost.  England  was  then  a  great  naval  power  while  France  was  far 
inferior.  The  recent  French  losses  in  San  Domingo,  with  the  proximity  to 
Louisiana  of  the  British  naval  armaments  in  that  quarter,  with  well-equipped 
garrisons  in  Jamaica  and  the  Windward  Islands,  required  but  little  reflection  for 
an  astute  mind  like  that  of  Napoleon  to  suggest  the  most  disastrous  consequences 
if  immediate  action  by  him  should  not  be  adopted  as  to  Louisiana.  He  was  not 
long  in  arriving  at  a  conclusion.  Summoning  two  of  his  counsellors  to  him,  and 
in  a  very  impassioned  manner,  he  disclosed  to  them  his  purpose  with  regard  to 
Louisiana.  He  said  : 

They  (the  English)  shall  not  have  the  Mississippi,  which  they  covet.  *  *  *  The  conquest  of 
Louisiana  would  be  easy  if  they  only  took  the  trouble  to  make  a  descent  there.  I  have  not  a  moment 
to  lose  in  putting  it  out  of  their  reach.  I  think  of  ceding  it  to  the  United  States. 

They  only  ask  of  me  one  town  in  Louisiana,  but  I  already  consider  the  colony  as  entirely  lost ;  and  it 
appears  to  me  that  in  the  hands  of  this  growing  power  it  will  be  more  useful  to  the  policy,  and  even 
to  the  commerce,  of  France,  than  if  I  should  attempt  to  keep  it. 

NAPOLEON   OFFERS   TO   CEDE    ALL   OF   LOUISIANA. 

The  two  counsellors  disagreed,  one  approving  the  course  proposed  and  the 
other  decidedly  opposing  it.  To  the  first  one  Napoleon  communicated  his  final 
resolution,  saying : 

It  is  not  only  New  Orleans  that   I  will  cede,  it  is  the  whole  colony  without  any  reservation. 
To  attempt  to  retain  it  would  be  folly.     I  direct  you  to  negotiate  this  offer  with  the  envoys 
of  the  United  States.  I  will  be  moderate  in   consideration  of  the  necessity  in  which  I  am 

of  making  a  sale.     But  keep  this  to  yourself. 

It  was  Napoleon's  belief  that  Monroe  was  clothed  with  instructions  more 
extensive  than  the  assumed  authorization  of  Congress  would  warrant,  both  as  to 
territory  and  as  to  price.  In  this  he  was  mistaken.  The  instructions  to  our  envoys 
were  to  "procure  a  cession  to  the  United  States  of  New  Orleans  and 

of  West  and  East  Florida,  or  as  much  thereof  as  the  actual  proprietor  can  be 
prevailed  on  to  part  with." 

It  was  also  required  that  "the  navigation  of  the  river  Mississippi,  in  its  whole 
breadth  from  its  source  to  the  ocean  and  in  all  its  passages  to  and  from  the  same, 
shall  be  equally  free  and  common  to  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
French  Republic."  It  was  suggested  that  if  France  declined  to  cede  to  us  the 
whole  of  the  island  of  Orleans  then  a  part  should  be  sought  for,  if  no  more  than 
space  enough  upon  which  to  establish  a  large  commercial  town  on  the  bank  of  the 
river;  or  if  unable  to  procure  a  complete  jurisdiction  over  any  convenient  spot 


THOMAS  JEFFERSON  IN  isoa,  AT  THE  AGE  OF  60. 


By  permission  of  McClure's  Magazine. 


BARBE  MARBOIS. 


By  permission  of  the  Cosmopolitan  Magazine, 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  29 

whatever,  the  envoys  were  instructed  to  secure  a  right  of  deposit  with  the 
privilege  of  holding  real  estate  for  commercial  purposes.  If  the  Floridas  could 
not  be  secured  the  envoys  were  to  seek  for  suitable  deposits  at  the  mouths  of  the 
rivers  passing  from  the  United  States  through  the  Floridas,  as  well  as  their  free 
navigation. 

TWO    PROMINENT    ACTORS. 

There  are  two  eminent  .persons  in  history  to  whose  utterances  at  this  distant 
day  we  can  refer  with  confidence  for  authoritative  information  as  to  the  details  of 
the  negotiations  for,  and  as  to  what  was  included  in,  the  Louisiana  cession,  and 
these  are  Marbois  and  Jefferson — the  one  of  France,  the  other  of  America ;  the 
one,  who  was  Napoleon's  negotiator,  in  selling;  the  other,  who  was  our  President, 
in  buying  Louisiana.  These  men,  as  the  noted  representatives  of  the  two  countries 
in  this  transaction,  may  well  be  depended  on  to  convey  to  us  the  most  accurate 
information  touching  the  cession  in  all  its  phases. 

Marquis  de  Marbois  had  a  most  intimate  personal  knowledge  of  our  country 
and  had  contributed  valuable  aid  in  our  revolutionary  struggle.  He  was  also  a 
diplomat  of  wide  experience,  having  served  in  1769  as  secretary  of  the  French 
legation  to  the  diet  of  the  Empire,  which  held  its  sittings  at  Ratisbon  ;  later  he 
served  in  the  same  character  at  Dresden,  and  was  charge  d'affaires  at  Bavaria,  and 
was  afterwards  elected  counsellor  of  the  parliament  of  Metz.  In  1779  he  was  made 
secretary  of  the  French  legation  and  while  here  married  an  American,  a  resident  of 
Philadelphia  ;  at  all  times  he  was  a  most  devoted  friend  of  our  Republic.  On  his 
return  to  France  his  active  temperament  soon  brought  him  in  contact  with  the 
varying  changes  of  government  at  that  time.  He  suffered  imprisonment,  ostracism, 
and  exile  at  some  periods,  while  at  others  he  enjoyed  the  most  distinguished  honors. 
During  the  reign  of  terror  he  was  imprisoned,  and  recovered  his  liberty  only  with 
the  fall  of  Robespierre.  When  Napoleon  became  First  Consul  he  treated  Marbois 
with  marked  favor,  and  in  1801  made  him  minister  of  the  public  treasury. 
During  the  negotiations  for  the  cession  of  the  Louisiana  territory  he  was  selected 
by  Napoleon  as  plenipotentiary  on  the  part  of  the  French  Republic.  So  grave  a 
matter  should  properly  have  been  intrusted  to  Talleyrand,  but  Mr.  Monroe,  in  his 
memoirs  tells  us  that  Napoleon,  addressing  Marbois,  said,  "That  being  an  affair 
of  the  treasury,  I  will  commit  it  to  you."  It  is,  however,  asserted  that  this  was 
not  the  real  motive  for  intrusting  this  negotiation  to  Marbois,  but  was  done  because 
Napoleon  had  greater  confidence  in  his  integrity  than  he  had  in  Talleyrand's. 

The  following  extract  from  a  letter  from  Livingston  to  Madison,  of  April  13, 
1803,  may  here  be  of  interest,  as  it  refers  to  M.  Marbois,  who  related  to  Livingston 
an  interview  that  he  had  with  the  First  Consul : 

He  (Marbois)  then  took  occasion  to  mention  his  sorrow  that  any  cause  of  difference  should  exist 
between  our  countries.  The  Consul  told  him,  in  reply,  "Well,  you  have  the  charge  of  the  treasury; 
let  them  give  you  one  hundred  million  of  Francs,  and  pay  their  own  claims,  and  take  the  whole 
country."  Seeing  by  my  looks  that  I  was  surprised  at  so  extravagant  a  demand,  he  added  that  he  con 
sidered  the  demand  as  exorbitant,  and  had  told  the  First  Consul  that  the  thing  was  impossible;  that 


30  THE   LOUISIANA    PURCHASE. 

we  had  not  the  means  of  raising  that.  The  Consul  told  him  we  might  borrow  it.  I  now  plainly  saw 
the  whole-  business:  first,  the  Consul  was  disposed  to  sell;  next,  he  distrusted  Talleyrand,  on  account 
of  the  business  of  the  supposed  intention  to  bribe,  and  meant  to  put  the  negotiation  into  the  hands 
of  Marbois,  whose  character  for  integrity  is  established.  (See  American  State  Papers,  Foreign  Rela 
tions,  vol.  2,  p.  553.) 

Whether  this  be  true  or  otherwise,  it  is  certain  that  our  negotiators  had  great 
admiration  for  Marbois,  as  Monroe,  in  referring  to  the  success  obtained,  says : 

I  add  with  pleasure  that  the  conduct  of  M.  Marbois,  in  every  stage  of  the  negotiations,  was 
liberal,  candid  and  fair,  indicating  a  very  friendly  feeling  for  the  United  States  and  a  strong  desire  to 
preserve  the  most  amicable  relations  between  the  two  countries. 

THE   AMERICAN    NEGOTIATORS. 

At  this  time  Robert  R.  Livingston  was  the  American  minister  to  Paris.  He 
had  been  judge  of  the  admiralty  court,  a  justice  of  the  New  York  supreme  court, 
and  a  member  of  the  stamp  act  Congress  in  1765.  He  was  a  delegate  to  the 
Continental  Congress,  where  he  was  chosen  one  of  a  committee  of  five  to  draft 
the  Declaration  of  Independence.  He  was  appointed  the  first  chancellor  of  New 
York  and  as  such  administered  the  oath  of  office  to  George  Washington  on  his 
inauguration  as  first  President  of  the  United  States.  He  was  Secretary  of  Foreign 
Affairs  for  the  United  States  from  1781  to  1783.  In  1801  he  resigned  the  chan 
cellorship  and  accepted  the  mission  to  France. 

James  Monroe,  as  before  mentioned,  was  also  appointed  to  aid  in  the  negotia 
tions,  and  was  named  as  minister  extraordinary.  His  life  had  been  an  eventful 
one.  He  joined  the  army  in  the  revolution  at  the  headquarters  of  Washington 
in  New  York  as  a  lieutenant  ;  was  with  the  troops  at  Harlem,  White  Plains  and 
Trenton  ;  he  also  took  part  in  the  battles  of  Brandywine,  Germantown  and 
Monmouth.  He  was  a  Representative  in  the  Fourth,  Fifth  and  Sixth  Congresses 
of  the  Confederation;  was  elected -a  United  States  Senator  from  Virginia  in  1790, 
and  held  the  office  for  four  years,  when  he  was  sent  as  envoy  to  France.  He  was 
governor  of  Virginia  from  1799  to  1802.  After  Jefferson's  election  to  the  Presi 
dency  he  was  returned  to  the  French  mission  from  which  a  few  years  before  he 
had  been  recalled.  From  Paris  he  went  to  London  as  the  accredited  representa 
tive  of  the  United  States  to  the  Court  of  St.  James.  After  his  return  he  was 
chosen  for  the  second  time  governor  of  Virginia,  and  afterwards  became  Secretary 
of  State  under  President  Madison.  In  1814-15  he  acted  as  Secretary  of  War. 
In  1816,  at  the  age  of  59,  he  was  elected  President  of  the  United  States,  and  was 
reelected  in  1821  with  almost  complete  unanimity.  Under  his  administration 
much  important  legislation  was  enacted  ;  he  became  conspicuous  in  his  resist 
ance  to  foreign  interference  in  American  affairs,  and  his  name  has  become 
associated  with  the  policy  ever  since  known  as  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  which  now 
has  the  force  of  international  law.  His  appointment  to  Paris  at  this  particular 
time  was  a  very  popular  one,  especially  in  view  of  the  well-known  record  he  had 
made  in  advocacy  of  the  American  claim  to  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi 


ROBERT  R.  LIVINGSTON. 


PRESIDENT  MONROE. 


By  permission  of  the  Cosmopolitan  Magazine. 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  31 

river.  Much  was  expected  of  him,  and  well  this  confidence  was  repaid  as  the 
result  testified.  His  splendid  service  in  the  achievement  accomplished  was  in 
after  years  remembered,  when  he  was  elected  to  the  Chief  Magistracy  of  the  nation. 

These  were  the  eminent  Americans  who  were  to  arrange  the  terms  of  purchase 
with  the  French  negotiator.  All  had  been  intimate  before  and  had  contributed 
mutual  aid  in  the  establishment  of  our  Republic.  Livingston,  Monroe  and 
Marbois  now  met  on  the  shores  of  another  nation  as  envoys  of  two  different 
countries,  and  though  friends  were  yet  loyal  to  the  conflicting  interests  and  to 
the  opposite  sovereignties  which  they  respectively  represented. 

So  great  an  acquisition  as  the  Louisiana  territory  was  never  contemplated 
when  these  envoys  entered  upon  their  duties.  Such  thoughts  were  never  enter 
tained  by  Jefferson,  Madison,  Monroe  or  Livingston.  •  It  was  nowhere  discussed 
in  our  nation.  For  the  Floridas  and  for  New  Orleans  our  envoys  were  authorized 
to  offer  $2,000,000.  Jefferson  feared  to  the  last  moment  that  even  the  least  of  his 
proposals  would  be  rejected  by  France.  While  Livingston,  the  American  minister 
at  Paris,  was  exceedingly  nervous  and  never  confident;  various  efforts  were  made 
by  him  before  Monroe's  arrival  to  reach  some  terms.  When  Talleyrand  met  Liv 
ingston,  after  the  stormy  interview  between  himself,  Napoleon  and  Marbois,  he 
astounded  him  when  he  very  abruptly  inquired,  "\Vhat  will  you  give  for  the 
whole?"  So  unexpected  was  this,  it  was  difficult  for  him  to  make  reply.  The 
following  day  he  summoned  courage  to  follow  up  this  advantage  ;  approaching 
Talleyrand  on  the  proposition  for  the  cession  of  the  whole  of  Louisiana,  Talley 
rand  explained  that  the  suggestion  was  only  personal  from  himself.  Livingston, 
writing  to  Madison  at  the  time  of  this  interview,  says:  "He  (Talleyrand)  told 
me  he  would  answer  my  note,  but  that  he  must  do  it  evasively,  because  Loui 
siana  was  not  theirs."  This  only  made  Livingston  thereafter  the  more  suspicious 
and  led  him  strongly  to  believe  that  the  delays  were  intended  only  to  gain  time. 
Even  when  Marbois  seriously  submitted  to  him  a  like  proposition  he  hesitated 
to  confide  in  his  good  faith.  He  also  realized  that  he  was  without  authority  to 
entertain  such  an  enlarged  scheme,  however  sincerely  offered.  While  the  true 
condition  remained  unknown  to  him,  and  while  he  was  still  suffering  the  greatest 
distrust  of  his  surroundings,  Monroe  arrived;  at  his  first  meeting  with  his  col 
league,  Livingston  said  to  him,  "Only  force  can  give  us  New  Orleans.  We 
must  employ  force.  Let  us  first  get  possession  of  the  country  and  negotiate 
afterwards."  A  conference  on  the  following  day  with  Marbois  soon  convinced 
Monroe  of  the  victory  which  was  close  at  hand.  Marbois,  being  delighted  to 
meet  his  old  friend  of  the  revolutionary  days,  frankly  confided  to  him  the  conclu 
sion  of  Napoleon  with  a  reliable  statement  of  the  motives  for  the  same.  The 
overtures  by  Marbois  were  received  with  surprise  and  delight.  It  was  impossible 
to  realize  the  magnitude  of  the  prize.  As  Marbois  in  after  years  so  well  says  in 
his  writings : 

Instead  of  the  cession  of  a  town  and  its  inconsiderable  territory  a  vast  portion  of  America  was 
in  some  sort  offered  to  the  United  States.  They  only  asked  for  the  mere  right  of  navigating  the 
Mississippi,  and  their  sovereignty  was  about  to  be  extended  over  the  largest  rivers  of  the  world. 


32  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

LOUISIANA  CEDED   TO  THE   UNITED  STATES. 

The  American  envoys  could  not  consult  the  home  government  for  further 
instructions.  The  distance  was  great  and  time  was  precious.  War  was  soon  to 
be  declared  between  England  and  France.  Prompt  action  was  necessary.  Quick 
ness  in  action  meant  the  vast  domain  west  of  the  Mississippi  for  our  Republic,  as 
delay  in  action  would  mean  it  for  England.  Our  negotiators  read  the  future  with 
the  alternative  before  them,  and  they  gladly  accepted  the  issue,  and  soon  there 
was  an  agreement  for  the  cession  of  the  whole  of  Louisiana.  It  was  Marbois  who 
submitted  the  draft  which  contained  this  clause: 

The  colony  or  province  of  Louisiana  is  ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States,  with  all  its  rights 
and  appurtenances,  as  fully  and  in  the  .same  manner  as  they  have  been  acquired  by  the  French  Repub 
lic,  by  virtue  of  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  concluded  with  His  Catholic  Majesty  at  St.  Ildephonso 
on  the  ist  of  October,  1800. 

This  language  was  subsequently  changed  and  when  made  a  part  of  the  final 
treaty  the  clause  was  as  follows  : 

ART.  r.  Whereas  by  the  article  the  third  of  the  treaty  concluded  at  St.  Ildefonso,  the  gth  Vende- 
miaire,  an.  9  (ist  October,  1800,)  between  the  First  Consul  of  the  French  Republic  and  his  catholic 
majesty,  it  was  agreed  as  follows:  "  His  catholic  majesty  promises  and  engages  on  his  part,  to  cede  to 
the  French  Republic,  six  months  after  the  full  and  entire  execution  of  the  conditions  and  stipulations 
herein  relative  to  his  royal  highness,  the  Duke  of  Parma,  the  colony  or  province  of  Louisiana,  with 
the  same  extent  that  it  now  has  in  the  hands  of  Spain,  and  that  it  had  when  France  possessed  it,  and 
such  as  it  should  be  after  the  treaties  subsequently  entered  into  between  Spain  and  other  States."  And 
whereas,  in  pursuance  of  the  treaty,  and  particularly  of  the  third  article,  the  French  Republic  has  an 
incontestible  title  to  the  domain  and  to  the  possession  of  the  said  territory:  The  First  Consul  of  the 
French  Republic  desiring  to  give  to  the  United  States  a  strong  proof  of  his  friendship,  doth  hereby 
cede  to  the  said  United  States,  in  the  name  of  the  French  Republic,  forever  and  in  full  sovereignty, 
the  said  territory,  with  all  its  rights  and  appurtenances,  as  fully  and  in  the  same  manner  as  they  have 
been  acquired  by  the  French  Republic,  in  virtue  of  the  above-mentioned  treaty,  concluded  with  His 
catholic  majesty. 

Did  France  recover  possession  of  the  Louisiana  it  formerly  owned  and,  if  so, 
was  not  that  Louisiana  the  same  as  now  ceded  to  the  United  States?  This  was  a 
vital  question. 

INDEFINITE   BOUNDARIES. 

As  this  description  was  very  vague  and  unsatisfactory  as  to  the  definite 
boundaries  and  extent  of  the  purchase,  our  envoys  quite  properly  insisted  upon  a 
more  specific  identification.  The  domain  to  the  east  of  the  Mississippi  had  all 
been  determined  by  various  treaties,  and  the  claims  of  the  different  nations  were 
generally  well  known,  though  some  were  not  conceded ;  yet  the  great  empire  lying 
to  the  west  of  the  Mississippi  continued  to  remain  a  source  of  much  trou'ble  and 
uncertainty,  as  no  satisfactory  data  were  offered  for  specific  boundary,  and  none 
could  be  agreed  iipon.  Marbois  expressed  to  Napoleon  the  difficult}-  in  reaching  a 
definite  conclusion  as  to  boundary,  and  regretted  the  obscurity  in  which  so  impor 
tant  a  reference  was  made,  but  this  did  not  trouble  the  conscience  of  Napoleon, 


THE   LOUISIANA    PURCHASE.  33 

who  replied,  "that  if  an  obscurity  did  not  already  exist,  it  would,  perhaps,  be 
good  policy  to  put  one  there."  Even  when  questioned  as  to  the  eastern  boundary, 
evasive  answers  were  returned.  Livingston  asked  Talleyrand  for  the  description 
contained-in  the  instructions  given  by  his  nation  previously  to  Laussat,  and  which 
contained  a  definition  of  the  cession.  ' '  What  are  the  eastern  bounds  of  Louis 
iana?"  asked  Livingston.  "I  do  not  know,"  replied  Talleyrand.  "You  must 
take  it  as  we  received  it."  "But  what  did  you  mean  to  take?"  said  Livingston. 
"I  do  not  know,"  replied  Talleyrand.  "Then  you  mean  that  we  shall  construe 
it  our  own  way?"  said  Livingston  again,  to  which  Talleyrand  made  final  reply, 
"I  can  give  you  no  direction.  You  have  made  a  noble  bargain  for  yourselves, 
and  I  suppose  you  will  make  the  most  of  it. ' ' 

Our  envoys  did  not  worry  long  over  this  vexed  problem.  They  were  as  eager 
as  the  French  to  close  the  bargain  and  take  the  chances  and,  if  need  be,  rely  on 
future  treaty  stipulations  for  more  certainty  as  to  boundaries.  It  is  evident  that 
careful  attention  was  not  given  to  the  agreement  as  an  entirety,  as  many  omissions 
were  subsequently  observed,  which,  if  more  care  had  been  taken  in  its  preparation 
would  never  have  occurred,  but  as  Livingston  wrote  to  Madison:  "I  was  willing 
to  take  it  under  any  form. ' '  The  price  agreed  upon  was  finally  fixed  at  60,000,000 
francs,  in  the  form  of  United  States  6  per  cent  bonds,  in  value  $11,250,000;  and 
in  addition  to  this  our  Government  assumed  the  payment  of  certain  debts  due  to 
our  own  citizens  valued  at  20,000,000  francs,  or  $3,750,000,  making  as  the  total 
consideration  paid,  $15,000,000.  When  we  consider  that  Jefferson  at  one  time 
was  willing  to  give  $2,000,000  for  New  Orleans  alone,  we  can  well  marvel  that 
so  vast  an  empire  as  the  whole  province  should  come  to  us  for  the  price  paid.  We 
can  afford  to  overlook  any  defects  in  the  treaty  details,  and  forever  hold  in  grati 
tude  the  illustrious  men  who,  by  their  diplomatic  skill,  their  earnestness  of  pur 
pose,  and  well-directed  efforts,  achieved  one  of  the  greatest  triumphs  in  the  world's 
history,  and  which,  one  historian  writes,  "ranked  in  historical  importance  next  to 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution." 

It  well  justified  the  boast  of  Livingston  as  he  placed  his  name  to  the  treaty 
of  cession,  and  rising  and  shaking  hands  with  Monroe  and  Marbois,  said:  "We 
have  lived  long,  but  this  is  the  noblest  work  of  our  lives." 

RATIFICATIONS   EXCHANGED. 

The  treaties  were  sent  to  Washington  as  fast  as  possible,  as  it  was  Napoleon's 
desire  that  ratifications  should  be  exchanged  at  Washington  rather  than  at  Paris. 
By  this  course  he  hoped  to  gain  time  on  England,  as  this  assured  him  an  earlier 
payment  of  the  money  for  the  purchase.  The  papers  arrived  at  Washington 
July  14,  1803,  and  October  17,  following,  Congress  was  convened;  after  much 
discussion  and  contention  as  to  the  constitutional  authority  of  Congress  to  annex 
foreign  territory  to  the  Union,  the  treaty  was  ratified.  Even  with  all  this  done 
our  anxieties  were  not  at  an  end,  nor  our  purchase  secure.  Up  to  this  moment, 

2239 3 


34  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

Louisiana  still  remained  in  the  possession  and  under  the  government  of  Spain. 
There  had  as  yet  been  no  surrender  to  France  under  the  treaty  of  St.  Ildefonso, 
October  i,  1800,  and  three  years  had  elapsed  since  then.  France  was  not  in  the 
occupancy  of  the  purchase  to  comply  with  the  treaty  negotiated  with  the 
Americans.  Indeed,  when  at  last  the  treaty  was  made  known  to  the  Spaniards 
in  Louisiana  and  even  in  Spain,  protests  were  received  at  Washington  from  both 
quarters.  The  Spanish  minister  served  notice  on  our  Government — 

that  he  had  orders  to  warn  the  Federal  Government  to  suspend  the  ratification  and  execution  of  the 
treaties  of  cession  of  Louisiana,  as  the  French  Government  in  securing  the  province  had  contracted  an 
engagement  with  Spain  not  to  retrocede  it  to  any  other  power.  *  *  *  France  not  having 
executed  that  engagement,  the  treaty  cession  was  void. 

It  was  thought  by  many  that  England  had  united  with  Spain  to  defeat  the 
purchase.  The  French  Government  had  given  orders  that  both  transfers  of 
authority  should  take  place  at  New  Orleans  at  the  same  time,  so  as  to  expedite 
the  surrender  to  the  United  States  before  England  could  intervene. 


POSSESSION   TAKEN. 

Regardless  of  the  Spanish  protests,  the  French  charge  d'affaires  at  Washing 
ton  transmitted  instructions  to  the  representative  of  his  government  at  New 
Orleans  for  the  transfer.  The  messenger  reached  there  on  the  23d  of  November, 
1803.  A  conference  followed  between  the  French  and  Spanish  officials  and  it  was 
agreed  to  make  the  change.  The  Spanish  troops  and  militia  were  arrayed  in 
solemn  procession,  and  in  presence  of  those  assembled  the  commissioners  repre 
senting  France  and  Spain  proclaimed  the  missions  they  were  charged  to  execute. 
The  French  commissioner  presented  to  the  Spanish  commissioner  the  order  of  the 
King  of  Spain  for  the  delivery  of  the  province,  dated  more  than  one  year  previous, 
and  with  this  was  also  presented  the  direction  of  Napoleon  to  receive  possession 
in  the  name  of  France.  The  Spanish  governor  then  surrendered  the  keys  of  the 
city,  and  thereupon  the  authority  of  Spain  was  withdrawn  and  the  Spanish  colors 
lowered,  as  the  banners  of  France  were  unfurled  to  the  breeze  amid  the  booming 
of  artillery.  The  authority  of  France  continued  for  the  brief  period  of  twenty 
days,  and  then  the  last  change  was  to  occur,  when  the  Stars  and  Stripes  were 
to  wave  over  the  great  empire  west  of  the  Mississippi  and  over  the  island  of 
New  Orleans.  On  December  20,  1803,  the  American  troops  marched  into  the 
metropolis  and  the  French  prefect  sadly  announced: 

In  conformity  with  the  treaty  I  put  the  United  States  in  possession  of  Louisiana  and  its  depend 
encies.  The  citizens  and  inhabitants  who  wish  to  remain  here  and  obey  the  laws  are  from  this  moment 
exonerated  from  the  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  French  Republic. 

Thereupon  the  American  governor,  with  patriotic  delight,  addressing  the 
concourse  present,  said : 

The  cession  secures  to  you  and  your  descendants  the  inheritance  of  liberty,  perpetual  laws,  and 
magistrates  whom  you  will  elect  yourselves. 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  35 

As  the  French  colors  came  down  and  the  Red,  White  and  Blue  of  the  Ameri 
can  Republic  went  up,  the  trumpets  sounded,  the  troops  saluted,  and  gladsome 
voices  shouted  long  and  loud  in  honor  of  one  of  the  greatest  events  in  our  history. 

A    RIVALRY    FOR    HONOR. 

As  every  authentic  reference  to  the  history  of  this  cession  is  of  precious  value 
at  this  day,  I  can  not  refrain  from  adding  an  extract  from  one  of  Mr.  Livingston's 
letters,  tending  to  show  the  zealous  pride  he  felt  for  his  participation  in  that  suc 
cess,  and  his  desire  that  the  credit  for  the  negotiation  should  be  given  to  him 
rather  than  to  Mr.  Monroe: 

I  have  in  my  former  letter  informed  you  of  M.  Talleyrand's  calling  upon  me  previous  to  the 
arrival  of  Mr.  Monroe,  for  a  proposition  for  the  whole  of  Louisiana;  of  his  afterwards  trifling  with  me, 
and  telling  me  that  what  fie  said  was  unauthorized.  This  circumstance,  for  which  I  have  accounted  to 
you  in  one  of  my  letters,  led  me  to  think,  though  it  afterwards  appeared  without  reason,  that  some 
change  had  taken  place  in  the  determination  which  I  knew  the  Consul  had  before  taken  to  sell.  I  had 
just  then  received  a  line  from  Mr.  Monroe,  informing  me  of  his  arrival.  I  wrote  a  hasty  answer,  under 
the  influence  of  ideas,  excited  by  these  prevarications  of  the  minister,  expressing  the  hope  that  he  had 
brought  information  that  New  Orleans  was  in  our  possession:  that  I  hoped  our  negotiations  might  be 
successful;  but  that,  while  I  feared  nothing  but  war  would  avail  us  anything,  I  had  paved  the  way  for 
him.  This  letter  is  very  imprudently  shown  and  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Monroe's  particular  friends,  as  a  proof 
that  he  had  been  the  principal  agent  in  the  negotiation.  So  far,  indeed,  as  it  may  tend  to  this  object, 
it  is  of  little  moment;  because  facts  and  dates  are  too  well  known  to  be  contradicted.  For  instance,  it 
is  known  to  everybody  here  that  the  Consul  had  taken  his  resolution  to  sell  previous  to  Mr.  Monroe's 
arrival.  It  is  a  fact  well  known  that  M.  Marbois  was  authorized,  informally,  by  the  First  Consul  to 
treat  with  me  before  Mr.  Monroe  reached  Paris:  that  he  actually  made  me  the  very  proposition  we- 
ultimately  agreed  to,  before  Mr.  Monroe  had  seen  a  minister,  except  M.  Marbois,  for  a  moment,  at  my 
house,  where  he  came  to  make  the  proposition:  Mr.  Monroe  not  having  been  presented  to  M.  Talley 
rand,  to  whom  I  introduced  him  the  afternoon  of  the  next  day.  All,  then,  that  remained  to  negotiate, 
after  his  arrival,  was  a  diminution  of  the  price;  and  in  this  our  joint  omission  was  unfortunate,  for  we 
came  up,  as  soon  as  Mr.  Monroe's  illness  would  suffer  him  to  do  business,  after  a  few  days  delay,  to 
the  minister's  offers.  There  is  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Monroe's  talents  and  address  would  have  enabled 
him,  had  he  been  placed  in  my  circumstances,  to  have  effected  what  I  have  done.  But  he  unfor 
tunately  came  too  late  to  do  more  than  assent  to  the  propositions  that  were  made  us,  and  to  aid  in 
reducing  them  to  form.  (Livingston  to  Madison,  Nov.  15,  1803.  American  State  Papers,  Foreign 
Relations,  vol.  2,  p.  573. ) 

The  credit  here  claimed  by  Mr.  Livingston  is  put  in  question  by  M.  Mar 
bois,  who  asserts  that  the  preliminary  discussions  were  scarcely  entered  on,  and 
that  their  results  could  not  have  been  anticipated  when  Mr.  Monroe  reached 
Havre.  (See  Marbois' s  Louisiana.)  This  statement  seems  to  be  confirmed  by 
reference  to  Monroe's  Memoir,  wherein  it  is  stated  that,  in  the  first  conference 
between  Livingston  and  Monroe  after  the  latter' s  arrival  in  Paris,  Livingston 
said  to  him:  "Only  force  can  give  us  New  Orleans.  We  must  employ  force. 
Let  us  first  get  possession  of  the  country  and  negotiate  afterwards." 

Marbois  narrates  that  Monroe  was  not  discouraged  by  the  gloomy  view  enter 
tained  by  Livingston,  but  entered  upon  his  conference  the  next  day  with  zeal. 
However  this  may  be,  Livingston  richly  merits  our  everlasting  gratitude,  and  his 
name  will  go  down  with  honor  with  those  of  Monroe  and  Jefferson. 


36  THE  LOUISIANA    PURCHASE. 


THE   MAGNITUDE   OF   THE   PURCHASE. 

The  entire  area  comprised  in  the  Louisiana  Purchase  covers  875,025  square 
miles,  and  contains  560,016,000  acres.  This  excludes  the  area  west  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains,  and  also  that  east  of  the  Mississippi,  which  latter  by  other  treaties  is 
counted  as  a  portion  of  the  Florida  cession,  and  that  from  Great  Britain. 

The  Louisiana  Purchase  proper  embraces  the  entire  States  of  Arkansas,  Mis 
souri,  Iowa,  Nebraska,  North  and  South  Dakota,  parts  of  the  States  of  Minnessota, 
Kansas,  Colorado,  Montana,  Wyoming,  Louisiana,  all  of  the  Indian  Territory,  and 
part  of  Oklahoma  Territory. 

Its  area  is  more  than  seven  times  that  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland;  more  than 
four  times  that  of  the  German  Empire,  or  of  the  Austrian  Empire,  or  of  France ; 
more  than  three  times  that  of  Spain  and  Portugal;  more  than  seven  times  the  size 
of  Italy  and  twice  that  of  Egypt;  nearly  ten  times  that  of  Turkey  and  Greece; 
nearly  three  times  that  of  Sweden  and  Norway,  and  nearly  six  times  that  of  the 
Japanese  Empire.  It  is  also  larger  than  Great  Britain,  Germany,  France,  Spain, 
Portugal  and  Italy  combined.  It  is  about  one-fourth  less  than  the  area  of  the 
thirteen  original  States. 

According  to  the  census  of  1890  it  had  then  a  population  of  11,232,439. 

It  produced  in  1896,  according  to  the  reports  of  the  Department  of  Agricul 
ture,  1,145,137,081  bushels  of  corn,  valued  at  $191,812,676;  151,395,786  bushels 
of  wheat,  valued  at  $111,488,251;  and  260,822,175  bushels  of  oats,  valued  at 
$41,660,266. 

The  value  of  real  and  personal  property  in  1890  was  $3,190,456,461. 

The  area  of  public  lands  disposed  of  to  1897  amounted  to  510,858  square  miles, 
while  the  public  lands  remaining  unsurveyed  aggregated  125,192  square  miles. 
The  area  unappropriated  and  subject  to  entry  equals  188,300  square  miles. 

EARLY   OPPOSITION    TO   ANNEXATION. 

In  the  face  of  every  effort  on  the  part  of  our  Government  to  acquire  valuable 
foreign  territory,  there  have  always  been  those  high  in  authority  and  influential 
in  the  nation  who  predicted  disaster,  belittled  the  present  or  prospective  value  of 
the  proposed  acquisition,  and  discouraged  the  policy  or  disputed  the  constitu 
tional  authority  for  such  additions  to  our  domain,  whether  such  extensions  were 
by  purchase  or  voluntary  offering  without  price.  It  is,  however,  equally  true,  and 
a  significant  answer,  that,  without  a  single  exception  in  our  history,  every  such 
acquisition  has  proven  immensely  valuable,  and  while  it  enlarged  it  also  strength 
ened  and  enriched  our  common  country.  In  reviewing  the  industrial  develop- 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  37 

inent  of  the  United  States  and  their  capacity  for  the  absorption  and  support  of  the 
millions  of  population  which  we  have  invited  from  other  countries,  it  has  been 
the  wonder  of  the  greatest  thinkers  that,  in  our  numerous  acquisitions  of  such 
vast  areas,  we  should  not  have  added  much  more  waste  and  worthless  domain  to 
our  possessions.  With  our  present  knowledge  and  appreciation  of  the  Louisiana 
cession,  it  may  be  of  interest,  at  this  time,  to  reproduce  the  exact  language  used 
ninety-five  years  ago  by  many  in  this  country  in  severe  condemnation  of  this 
cession.  Jefferson  himself  suffered  bitter  detraction  and  personal  ridicule.  I 
append  various  extracts  from  speeches  in  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa 
tives  in  relation  to  that  cession,  viz: 

Senator  Pickering,  of  Massachusetts,  November  3,  1803,  said: 

It  is  declared  in  the  third  article  (of  the  treaty)  that  "the  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territory  shall 
be  incorporated  in  the  Union  of  the  United  States."  But  neither  the  President  and  Senate,  nor  the 
President  and  Congress,  are  competent  to  such  an  act  of  incorporation.  He  believed  the  assent  of 
each  individual  State  to  be  necessary  for  the  admission  of  a  foreign  country  as  an  associate  in  the  Union. 

Senator  Tracy,  of  Connecticut,  said: 

We  can  hold  territory;  but  to  admit  the  inhabitants  into  the  Union,  to  make  citizens  of  them, 
and  States,  by  treaty,  we  can  not  constitutionally  do;  and  no  subsequent  act  of  legislation,  or  even 
ordinary  amendment  to  our  Constitution  can  legalize  such  measures.  If  done  at  all,  they  must  be  done 
by  universal  consent  of  all  the  States  or  partners  to  our  political  association. 

Representative  Griswold,  of  Connecticut,  October  25,  1803,  said: 

It  is  not  consistent  with  the  spirit  of  a  republican  government  that  its  territory  should  be 
exceedingly  large ;  for,  as  you  extend  your  limits  you  increase  the  difficulties  arising  from  a  want  of 
that  similarity  of  customs,  habits  and  manners  so  essential  for  its  support. 

******* 

It  will  not  be  found  either  in  the  report  of  the  secret  committee  which  has  recently  been  published, 
or  in  any  document  or  debate,  that  any  individual  entertained  the  least  wish  to  obtain  the  province  of 
Louisiana;  our  views  were  then  confined  to  New  Orleans  and  the  Floridas.  The  vast  and 

unmanageable  extent  which  the  accession  of  Louisiana  will  give  the  United  States;  the  consequent 
dispersion  of  our  population,  and  the  destruction  of  that  balance  which  it  is  so  important  to  maintain 
between  the  Eastern  and  Western  States,  threatens,  at  no  very  distant  day,  the  subversion  of  our  Union. 

Representative  Griffin,  of  Virginia,  said: 

He  feared  the  effect  of  the  vast  extent  of  our  empire;  he  feared  the  effects  of  the  increased  value 
of  labor,  the  decrease  in  the  value  of  lands,  and  the  influence  of  climate  upon  our  citizens  who  should 
migrate  thither.  He  did  fear  (though  this  land  was  represented  as  flowing  with  milk  and  honey)  that 
this  Eden  of  the  New  World  would  prove  a  cemetery  for.the  bodies  of  our  citizens. 

Senator  Plumer,  of  New  Hampshire,  said: 

Admit  this  western  world  into  the  Union  and  you  destroy  at  once  the  weight  and  importance  of 
the  Eastern  States  and  compel  them  to  establish  a  separate,  independent  empire. 

Senator  James  White,  of  Delaware,  said : 

But  as  to  Louisiana— this  new,  immense,  unbounded  world — if  it  should  ever  be  incorporated  into 
the  Union,  of  which  I  have  no  idea,  can  only  be  done  by  amending  the  Constitution,  I  believe  it  will 
be  the  greatest  curse  that  could  at  present  befall  us.  It  may  be  productive  of  innumerable  evils,  and 
especially  of  one  that  I  fear  to  ever  look  upon.  *  *  Thus  our  citizens  will  be  removed  to  the 

immense  distance  of  two  or  three  thousand  miles  from  the  capital  of  the  Union,  where  they  will  scarcely 


THE   LOUISIANA    PURCHASE. 


ever  feel  the  rays  of  the  General  Government— their  affections  will  become  alienated;  they  will  grad 
ually  begin  to  view  us  as  strangers — they  will  form  other  commercial  connections,  and  our  interests  will 
become  distinct.  *  *  *  And  I  do  say  that  under  existing  circumstances,  even  supposing  that  this 
extent  of  territory  was  a  desirable  acquisition,  fifteen  millions  of  dollars  was  a  most  enormous  sum 
to  give. 

A    STRIKING   CONTRAST. 

A  very  few  illustrations,  in  the  development  of  the  country  embraced  within 
the  Louisiana  Purchase,  will  suffice  to  disprove  the  gloomy  forebodings  expressed 
as  to  the  effect  of  such  an  expansion  of  our  empire.  I  illustrate  not  with  such 
older  States  as  Louisiana,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Arkansas,  Missouri,  or  even  Minnesota, 
with  her  60,000,000  bushels  of  wheat,  ranking  her  as  first  among  the  producers  of 
our  nation's  wheat  yield  of  530,000,000  bushels  in  1897,  not  to  mention  her  many 
other  resources,  but  prefer  rather  to  select  the  more  remote  and  most  recently 
developed  portions  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase  nearer  the  Rocky  Mountain  region, 
as  here  the  record  will  read  enough  like  a  fairy  tale  to  interest  and  delight  as 
well  as  amaze  any  well-wisher  of  his  country. 

The  report  of  the  State  commissioner  of  mines  of  COLORADO  for  1897  fur 
nishes  the  following  as  the  production  and  value  of  four  metals  mined  in  that 
State  for  the  year  named  : 

Gold — 947,249  ounces $19,  579,  636.  83 

Silver — 21,278,202  ounces 12,  692,  447.  47 

Copper — 9,151,592  pounds 960,  917.  13 

Lead — 80,799,778  pounds 2,  731,  032.  49 

Total .  $35,  964,  033.  92 

Colorado's  gold  yield  now  exceeds  that  of  California  and  it  is  ahead  of 
any  other  State  in  this  respect.  The  sheep  of  Colorado  for  1897  were  valued 
at  $3,869,445  while  the  oxen,  milch  cows  and  other  cattle  were  valued  at 
$27,177,017  as  reported  by  the  Agricultural  Department.  Her  coal  yield  for 
1896  was  valued  at  $3,606,642  as  per  report  of  the  Geological  Survey;  and  her 
wheat  yield  for  1897  aggregated  5,117,000  bushels. 

Looking  to  the  neighboring  State  of  Wyoming,  we  do  not  find  a  record  for 
the  precious  metals,  but  see  a  pastoral  wealth  of  vast  extent.  Her  2,000,000 
sheep  were  valued  at  $5,714,332  and  her  oxen,  milch  cows  and  other  cattle  were 
valued  at  $17,000,000. 

Passing  to  the  adjoining  State  of  Montana — like  Wyoming,  astride  the  Rocky 
Mountains — we  observe  a  marvelous  combination  of  mineral,  agricultural  and 
pastoral  wealth.  The  mineral  yield  of  that  State  for  1897,  as  reported  by  the 
Helena,  Montana,  assay  office,  was  as  follows  : 


Metals. 

Customary  meas- 
•   ures. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Gold  

Fine  ounces  

217,  514.  846 

$  4,496,430.92 

Silver  

do  

16,  307,  346 

*2I,  730,  7IO.O3 

Copper  

237,  158,  540 

26,  798,915.02 

Lead  

.   .  do  

25,  794,  974 

928,619.06 

Total  

$53i  9541675.03 

*  Coinage  value. 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE.  39 

The  mountains  and  streams  of  Montana  have  yielded  $7 50, 000,000  of  precious 
metals  to  the  wealth  of  the  world  since  the  advent  of  those  pioneers  whose  arrival 
was  almost  coincident  with  the  discovery  there  of  gold  in  1862. 

This  ranks  Montana  first  in  order  in  silver  production  as  Colorado  ranks 
first  in  gold.  Her  copper  product  also  ranked  her  as  first  in  order  for  the  same 
year.  Her  coal  yield  for  1896  was  valued  at  $2,279,672  as  per  report  of  the 
Geological  Survey. 

The  Montana  oxen,  milch  cows  and  other  cattle  were  valued  at  $25,151,882 
while  her  3,247,641  sheep,  valued  at  $7,804,081  rank  her  now  as  first  on  the  roll 
of  the  wool-growing  States  and  Territories  of  the  Union.  Her  wheat  yield  for 
1897  amounted  to  2,268,000  bushels. 

South  Dakota  is  another  instance  of  marvelous  development.  Her  gold  yield 
in  1897  was  $5, 300,000  and  ranked  fourth  among  the  gold-producing  States,  while 
her  wheat  yield  was  21,441,248  bushels,  valued  at  $14,794,461. 

North  Dakota  yielded  28,383,552  bushels,  valued  at  $20,981,628.  North  and 
South  Dakota  combined  produced  nearly  one-tenth  of  all  the  wheat  produced  in 
the  United  States,  and  yet  these  States  twelve  years  ago  embraced  but  one  Terri 
tory,  not  thought  qualified  at  that  time  for  statehood. 

Perhaps  one  of  the  most  remarkable  evidences  of  development  is  that  which 
is  exhibited  in  the  case  of  Oklahoma  Territory.  Only  eight  years  ago  that  por 
tion  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase  was  still  an  Indian  reservation — a  part  of  the 
Indian  Territory,  and  the  hunting  ground  of  the  tribes  therein.  So  rapid  has 
been  the  progress  since  the  opening  to  settlement  was  formally  declared  in  1889, 
that  there  was  a  population,  as  returned  by  the  assessor  for  1896,  exceeding  275,000 
which  is  now  largely  increased;  and  more  votes  were  cast  there  in  that  year  than 
are  cast  in  Florida  or  Delaware.  From  the  last  annual  report  of  Governor  C.  M. 
Barnes,  the  total  wheat  produced  for  1897  is  found  to  be  20,000,000  bushels,  as 
per  shipments,  while  the  cotton  crop  marketed  amounted  to  40,000  bales,  and  for 
this  year  125,000  bales  is  the  estimate.  If  this  is  to  mark  the  advance  of  eight 
years,  what  shall  we  not  expect  in  twenty  years  to  follow!  No  other  parallel 
exists — not  even  in  the  California  days  of  '49 — as  to  such  a  growth  of  population 
and  civil  government.  Towns  and  cities  were  literally  built  in  a  night;  farms 
were  cleared  for  the  plow;  the  cereals  and  esculents  planted;  orchards  prepared; 
and  a  system  of  orderly  business  inaugurated  in  thirty  days,  which  in  other  Ter 
ritories  have  required  one  or  more  years  to  accomplish.  It  is  an  illustration  of 
what  American  enterprise  and  intelligent  effort  can  accomplish  under  the  stimulus 
of  our  free  institutions. 

THE   LEWIS  AND  CLARKE  EXPEDITION. 

The  treaty  of  the  Louisiana  cession  was  concluded  April  30,  1803,  but  even 
previous  to  that,  Jefferson,  while  Secretary  of  State  under  Washington  in  1792, 
was  anxious  to  explore  the  country  between  the  Mississippi  and  Rocky  Mountains ; 
he  was  desirous  of  extending  commercial  relations  among  the  Indian  tribes  of 


40  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

that  region  and  to  the  more  remote  West,  and  of  diverting  to  onr  own  people  the 
traffic  of  those  countries  which  was  then  largely  monopolized  by  Canadian  and 
British  traders.  He  communicated  with  the  American  Philosophical  Society, 
suggesting  that  the  services  of  a  suitable  person  be  secured  to  visit  the  Missouri 
river,  thence  cross  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  proceed  as  far  as  the  sea;  he 
expressed  the  hope  to  the  society  that  a  subscription  might  be  raised  to  aid 
such  an  object.  Capt.  Meriwether  Lewis,  a  captain  in  the  regular  Army,  and  at 
that  time  serving  in  Virginia,  heard  of  this  proposition  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  to 
him  offered  to  undertake  such  a  journey.  No  means  being  at  hand  it  was  not 
undertaken.  When,  however,  Jefferson  became  President  the  project  was  still 
uppermost  in  his  mind,  and  in  a  message  addressed  to  Congress  January  18,  1803, 
he  recommended  that  an  expedition  be  authorized  at  government  expense  for  the 
purposes  mentioned.  Congress  responded  with  a  generous  appropriation  and  a 
company  was  selected  under  the  personal  supervision  of  the  President. 

The  early  request  of  Captain  Lewis,  who  had  since  then  been  selected  by 
President  Jefferson  as  his  private  secretary,  was  now  remembered,  and  thus  his 
name  with  that  of  Captain  Clarke  is  inseparably  connected  with  this  world- 
renowned  expedition. 

Though  the  instructions  for  the  expedition  were  not  drafted  until  June  20, 
1803,  which  was  after  Louisiana  had  been  ceded  to  the  United  States,  yet  it  was 
before  the  treaties  reached  Washington,  July  14,  1803. 

It  is  argued  that  the  sending  of  this  expedition  to  the  Pacific  is  an  evidence 
that  Jefferson  regarded  that  country  as  a  part  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase,  and  hence 
that  he  desired  full  information  of  the  possession.  This  is  an  erroneous  assump 
tion,  as  it  is  of  record  that  Jefferson's  desire  was  to  improve  and  extend  our  traffic 
with  the  natives;  this  is  manifest  from  a  reading  of  the  instructions  to  Lewis 
and  Clarke,  which  direct  that  they  inform  themselves  "of  the  circumstances  which 
may  decide  whether  the  furs  of  those  Indians  may  not  be  collected  as  advanta 
geously  at  the  head  waters  of  the  Missouri,  convenient,  as  is  supposed,  to  the 
waters  of  the  Colorado  and  Oregon  or  Columbia,  as  at  Nootka  Sound  or  any  other 
point  of  that  coast,  and  that  trade  be  consequently  conducted  through  the  Mis 
souri  and  United  States  more  beneficially  than  by  the  circumnavigation  now 
practiced."  They  were  to  hold  communication  with  the  various  Indian  tribes  in 
an  endeavor  to  establish  amicable  trading  relations.  When  Congress  authorized 
this  expedition  no  information  had  reached  this  country  that  there  was  even  an 
offer  on  the  part  of  France  to  sell  us  Louisiana.  We  had  confined  our  attention  to 
the  Floridas  and  to  New  Orleans,  and  had  expressed  no  desire  for  anything  west 
ward  of  the  Mississippi.  The  Lewis  and  Clarke  instructions  made  it  evident  that 
Jefferson  was  not  even  considering  the  country  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  as 
an  American  possession,  since  he  suggests  that  the  head  waters  of  the  Missouri, 
being  convenient  to  the  Columbia  river  across  the  mountains,  might  be  selected 
for  the  purpose  of  collecting  the  furs  obtained  on  the  waters  of  the  Columbia  and 
Colorado,  instead  of  transporting  them  to  Nootka  Sound  on  the  Pacific,  and  thence 
via  Cape  Horn  to  the  United  States — a  long  and  expensive  journey.  The  naviga- 


THE   LOUISIANA    PURCHASE.  41 

tioii  of  the  Missouri  to  its  head  was  a  prime  object,  and  this  was  investigated  by 
Lewis  and  Clarke,  as  they  proceeded  by  boats  as  far  as  it  was  possible  to  go,  and 
their  diary  is  complete  on  this  point.  "Through  the  Missouri  and  United  States" 
are  the  words  which  Jefferson  writes  to  Lewis  and  Clarke;  and  they  imply  that  the 
Missouri  was  not  then  understood  by  him  to  be  in  the  United  States.  Therefore 
it  is  plain  that  the  expedition  of  Lewis  and  Clarke  was  not  even  in  anticipation  of 
the  purchase  of  any  country  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  but  for  trade  purposes 
only. 

This  view  is  confirmed  by  a  letter,  from  Jefferson  to  Lewis,  written  after  the 
cession  of  Louisiana,  which  indicates  the  opinion  he  then  held  as  to  our  western 
boundary,  as  since  established,  being  the  "highlands  inclosing  all  the  waters  which 
run  into  the  Mississippi  or  Missouri  directly  or  indirectly,"  which  then  made  the 
Missouri  a  part  of  the  United  States,  which  it  was  not  when  the  expedition  was 
formed;  the  letter  also  confirms  the  view  as  to  the  original  purpose — "the  direct 
water  communication  from  sea  to  sea  formed  by  the  bed  of  the  Missouri  and  per 
haps  the  Oregon."  The  following  is  a  portion  of  Jefferson's  letter: 

WASHINGTON,  November  /6,  1803. 
To  Captain  LEWIS, 

DKAR  SIR,  —I  have  not  written  to  you  since  the  i  ith  and  i5th  of  July,  *  *  *  The  present  has 
been  long  delayed  by  an  expectation  daily  of  getting  the  enclosed  account  of  Louisiana  through  the 
press.  The  materials  are  received  from  different  persons,  of  good  authority.  I  enclose  you  also 
copies  of  the  treaties  for  Louisiana,  the  act  for  taking  possession  Orders  went  from  hence 

signed  by  the  King  of  Spain  and  the  first  consul  of  France,  so  as  to  arrive  at  Natchez  yesterday 
evening,  and  we  expect  the  delivery  of  the  province  at  New  Orleans  will  take  place  about  the  close  of 
the  ensuing  week,  say  about  the  26th  instant.  At  the  moment  of  delivering  over  the  ports 

in  the  vicinity  of  New  Orleans,  orders  will  be  despatched  from  thence  to  those  in  upper  Louisiana  to 
evacuate  and  deliver  them  immediately.  *  *  you  must  not  undertake  the  winter  excursion 
which  you  propose  in  yours  of  October  3d.  Such  an  excursion  will  be  more  dangerous  than  the  main 
expedition  up  the  Missouri,  and  would  by  an  accident  to  you,  hazard  our  main  object,  which,  since  our 
acquisition  of  Louisiana,  interests  everybody  in  the  highest  degree.  The  object  of  your  mission  is 
single,  the  direct  water  communication-  from  sea  to  sea  formed  by  the  bed  of  the  Missouri,  and  per 
haps  the  Oregon ;  by  having  Mr.  Clark  with  you  we  consider  the  expedition  as  double  manned  and 
therefore  the  less  liable  to  failure ;  for  which  reason  neither  of  you  should  be  exposed  to  risks  by 
going  off  of  your  line  k  As  the  boundaries  of  interior  Louisiana  are  the  high  lands  enclosing 

all  the  waters  which  run  into  the  Mississippi  or  Missouri  directly  or  indirectly,  with  a  quarter  breadth 
on  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  it  becomes  interesting  to  fix  with  precision  by  celestial  observations  the  lon 
gitude  and  latitude  of  the  sources  of  these  rivers,  so  providing  points  in  the  contour  of  our  new 
limits.  This  will  be  attempted  distinctly  from  your  mission,  which  we  consider  as  of  major  impor 
tance,  and  therefore,  not  to  be  delayed  or  hazarded  by  any  episodes  whatever. 

JEFFERSON'S  OBJECT  WAS  TO  SECURE  TRADE  RELATIONS. 

A  still  further  evidence  of  Jefferson's  great  object  in  promoting  our  trade 
relations  among  the  Indian  tribes  west  of  the  Mississippi,  which  trade  extending 
to  the  Pacific  was  then  so  lucrative  to  foreign  companies,  is  found  in  his  letter  to 

Astor,  five  years  after  the  cession,  as  follows: 

WASHINGTON,  April  73,  r8o8. 
To  Mr.  JOHN  JACOB  ASTOR. 

SIR, — I  have  regretted  the  delay  of  this  answer  to  your  letter  of  February  2yth,  but  it  has  pro 
ceeded  from  circumstances  which  did  not  depend  on  me.  I  learn  with  great  satisfaction  the  disposition 


42  THE   LOUISIANA    PURCHASE. 

of  our  merchants  to  form  into  companies  for  undertaking  the  Indian  trade  within  our  own  territories. 
I  have  been  taught  to  believe  it  an  advantageous  one  for  the  individual  adventurers,  and  I  consider  it 
as  highly  desirable  to  have  that  trade  centred  in  the  hands  of  our  own  citizens.  The  field  is  immense, 
and  would  occupy  a  vast  extent  of  capital  by  different  companies  engaging  in  different  districts.  All 
beyond  the  Mississippi  is  ours  exclusively,  and  it  will  be  in  our  power  to  give  our  own  traders  great 
advantages  over  their  foreign  competitors  on  this  side  the  Mississippi.  You  may  be  assured  that  in 
order  to  get  the  whole  of  this  business  passed  into  the  hands  of  our  own  citizens,  and  to  oust  foreign 
traders,  who  so  much  abuse  their  privilege  by  endeavoring  to  excite  the  Indians  to  war  on  us,  every 
reasonable  patronage  and  facility  in  the  power  of  the  Executive  will  be  afforded.  I  salute  you  with 
respect. 

Whatever  the  motive  may  have  been  which  prompted  the  Lewis  and  Clarke 
expedition,  it  remains  as  the  first  exploration  of  the  valley  of  the  Columbia  river, 
from  its  head  to  the  sea,  and  forms  a  substantial  link  in  the  chain  through  which 
we  deduced  our  rightful  claim  to  that  entire  country  later  on.  Lewis  and  Clarke 
arrived  at  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river  November  15,  1805,  where  they  con 
structed  Fort  Clatsop,  and  remained  during  the  winter  of  1805-1806.  Upon  the 
return  of  the  expedition,  Lewis  was  very  appropriately  selected  as  governor  of 
Louisiana,  while  later  his  old  associate,  Captain  Clarke,  with  equal  propriety, 
was  appointed  by  President  Madison,  in  1813,  governor  of  the  Missouri  Territory. 
As  a  further  evidence  of  the  nation's  gratitude  munificent  grants  of  public  lands 
were  bestowed  upon  each  of  these  men. 


THE    FLORIDA    BOUNDARIES   UNCERTAIN. 

The  cession  of  Louisiana  from  France  being  now  complete,  the  previous 
uncertainty  as  to  the  western  boundary  of  the  Floridas  became  a  prolific  source  of 
trouble  and  anxiety  to  several  nations,  and  at  one  time  pressed  our  country  to  the 
verge  of  war.  When  Talleyrand  said  to  Livingston:  "  Do  you  want  the  whole  of 
Louisiana?"  Livingston  replied,  "No;  only  New  Orleans  and  the  Floridas." 
He  was  then  of  the  opinion  that  France  possessed  the  Floridas.  Livingston  also 
convinced  Monroe  that  the  Floridas  were  included  in  the  Louisiana  Purchase. 
President  Jefferson  was  at  one  time  in  doubt  upon  this  point.  This  may  seem 
incredible,  but  when  it  is  understood  that  the  secret  treaty  of  Paris  of  October  i, 
1800,  retroceding  Louisiana  to  France  was  not  made  public  in  full  until  1820, 
when  for  the  first  time  it  appeared  in  the  French  and  Spanish  languages,  it  can 
be  seen  how  erroneous  impressions  were  then  formed.  Mr.  Jefferson's  letter  to 
Mr.  Madison  (then  Secretary  of  State),  a  few  months  after  the  cession  to  us,  is  of 
interest  on  this  line  : 

MONTICELLO,  August  25,  1803. 

DEAR  SIR, — Your  two  favors  of  the  iSth  and  2oth  were  received  on  the  2ist.  *  *  *  I  suppose 
Monroe  will  touch  on  the  limits  of  Louisiana  only  incidentally,  inasmuch  as  its  extension  to  Perdido 
curtails  Florida,  and  renders  it  of  less  worth.  I  have  used  my  spare  moments  to  investigate,  by  the 
help  of  my  books  here,  the  subject  of  the  limits  of  Louisiana.  I  am  satisfied  our  right  to  the 
Perdido  is  substantial,  and  can  be  opposed  by  a  quibble  on  form  only;  and  our  right  westwardly 
to  the  Bay  of  St.  Bernard,  may  be  strongly  maintained.  I  will  use  the  first  leisure  to  make  a  state 
ment  of  the  facts  and  principles  on  which  this  depends  * 


THE    LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  43 

At  the  time  of  the  retrocession  to  France  it  was  understood  and  admitted  by 
all  parties  that  the  Floridas  were  in  the  physical  possession  of  Spain ;  the 
language  of  the  Louisiana  sale  to  our  nation  reads:  "Louisiana,  with  the  same 
extent  that  it  now  has  in  the  hands  of  Spain,  and  that  it  had  when  France  pos 
sessed  it,  and  such  as  it  should  be  after  the  treaties  subsequently  entered  into 
between  Spain  and  other  States"  ;  and  as  our  negotiators  understood  that  at  one 
time  the  western  part  of  the  Floridas  formed  a  portion  of  Louisiana,  Livingston 
insisted  that  our  purchase  included  the  same.  "What  are  the  eastern  bounds  of 
Louisiana?"  he  asked  of  Talleyrand.  "I  do  not  know;  you  must  take  it  as  we 
received  it,"  was  the  reply.  "But  what  do  you  mean  to  take?  "  asked  Livingston. 
"I  do  not  know,"  said  Talleyrand.  In  the  face  of  this  attempted  interpretation 
of  the  purchase  by  Livingston,  there  remained  of  record  in  the  State  Department 
at  Washington  his  reply  of  the  year  before  to  the  French  minister,  who  inquired 
as  to  our  meaning  of  the  extent  of  Louisiana,  and  Livingston  replied:  "  Since  the 
possession  of  the  Floridas  by  Britain  and  the  treaty  of  1763,  I  think  there  can  be 
no  doubt  as  to  the  precise  meaning  of  the  terms."  He  had  also  urged  that 
Napoleon  intercede  with  Spain  for  the  Floridas.  It  is  true  that  there  was  some 
plausibility  in  the  other  view.  The  French  claimed  the  Iberville  by  discovery, 
and,  under  the  rule,  could  well  claim  the  country  drained  by  it  to  the  eastward. 

Following  up  the  Mississippi  river  from  the  mouth  of  the  Iberville,  the  same 
country  along  the  east  of  the  river  was  claimed  by  France  and  conceded  later 
by  Spain.  Was  it  not  natural  that  the  eastern  bank  of  the  Iberville  and  the 
country  drained  by  it  should  also  belong  to  France?  The  first  attempt  to  define 
boundaries  was  in  the  treaty  of  1763,  wherein  France  agrees  with  England  that  the 
confines  between  the  two  countries  shall  be  a  line  "along  the  middle  of  the  river 
Mississippi,  from  its  source  to  the  river  Iberville,  and  from  thence  by  a  line  drawn 
along  the  middle  of  this  river,  and  the  lakes  Maurepas  and  Pontchartrain,  to  the 
sea  ;  and  for  this  purpose,  the  most  Christian  King  cedes  in  full  right  and  guarantees 
to  his  Britannic  Majesty,  the  river  and  port  of  Mobile,  and  everything  which  he 
possesses,  or  ought  to  possess,  on  the  left  side  of  the  river  Mississippi,  except  the 
town  of  New  Orleans  and  the  island  in  which  it  is  situated,"  England  in  the 
same  treaty  became  possessed  of  Florida  from  Spain,  and  hence  the  occasion  for 
defining  the  lines  between  France  and  England.  If  West  Florida  belonged  to 
France  and  was  included  in  the  cession  by  France  to  England  "of  everything 
which  he  possesses  on  the  left  side  of  the  river  Mississippi,"  and  subsequently 
was  included  in  the  retrocession  of  Florida  to  Spain  by  England,  might  it  not 
be  claimed  by  Livingston  as  being  included  in  the  Louisiana  Purchase  under  the 
terms  u  with  the  same  extent  that  it  now  has  in  the  hands  of  Spain,  and  that  it  had 
when  France  possessed  it?" 

Based  on  such  reasoning,  Livingston  and  Monroe  wrote  to  Madison  June  7, 
1803: 

We  consider  ourselves  so  strongly  founded  in  this  conclusion  that  we  are  of  opinion  the  United 
States  should  act  on  it  in  all  the  measures  relative  to  Louisiana,  in  the  same  manner  as  if  West  Florida 
was  comprised  within  the  island  of  New  Orleans;  or,  lay  to  the  west  of  the  river  Iberville.  (State 
Papers,  ii,  564-5.) 


44  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

President  Jefferson  was  even  more  radical  than  Livingston,  as  his  letter  to 
William  Dnnbar  explains,  as  follows: 

WASHINGTON,  March  sj, 


To  WII.UAM  DUNBAR,  Esq., 

DEAR  SIR,  —  Your  favor  of  January  28  has  been  duly  received,  *  *  *  We  were  much  indebted 
for  your  communications  on  the  subject  of  Louisiana  The  substance  of  what  was  received  from  you, 
as  well  as  others,  was  digested  together  and  printed,  without  letting  it  be  seen  from  whom  the  partic 
ulars  came,  as  some  were  of  a  nature  to  excite  ill-will.  Of  these  publications  I  sent  you  a  copy.  On 
the  subject  of  the  limits  of  Louisiana,  nothing  was  said  therein,  because  we  thought  it  best  first  to 
have  explanations  with  Spain.  In  the  first  visit,  after  receiving  the  treaty,  which  I  paid  to  Monticello, 
which  was  in  August,  I  availed  myself  of  what  I  have  there,  to  investigate  the  limits.  While  I  was  in 
Europe,  I  had  purchased  everything  I  could  lay  my  hands  on  which  related  to  an}-  part  of  America,  and 
particularly  had  a  pretty  full  collection  of  the  English,  French  and  Spanish  authors,  on  the  subject  of 
Louisiana.  The  information  I  got  from  these  was  entirely  satisfactory,  and  I  threw  it  into  a  shape 
which  would  easily  take  the  form  of  a  memorial.  I  now  enclose  you  a  copy  of  it.  One  single  fact  in 
it  was  taken  from  a  publication  in  a  newspaper,  supposed  to  be  written  by  Judge  Bay,  who  had  lived 
in  West  Florida.  This  asserted  that  the  country  from  the  Iberville  to  the  Perdido  was  to  this  day 
called  Louisiana,  and  a  part  of  the  government  of  Louisiana.  I  wrote  to  you  to  ascertain  that  fact, 
and  received  the  information  you  were  so  kind  as  to  send  me;  on  the  receipt  of  which  I  changed  the 
form  of  the  assertion,  so  as  to  adapt  it  to  what  I  suppose  to  be  the  fact,  and  to  reconcile  the  testimony 
I  have  received,  to  wit,  that  though  the  name  and  division  of  West  Florida  have  been  retained;  and  in 
strictness,  that  country  is  still  called  by  that  name  ;  yet  it  is  also  called  Louisiana  in  common  parlance, 
and  even  in  some  authentic  public  documents.  The  fact,  however,  is  not  of  much  importance.  It 
would  only  have  been  an  ar^umentum  ad  hominem.  Although  I  would  wish  the  paper  enclosed 
never  to  be  seen  by  anybody  but  yourself,  and  that  it  should  not  even  be  mentioned  that  the  facts  and 
opinions  therein  stated  are  founded  in  public  authority,  yet  I  have  no  objections  to'their  being  freely 
advanced  in  conversation,  and  as  private  and  individual  opinion,  believing  it  will  be  advantageous 
that  the  extent  of  our  rights  should  be  known  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  country;  and  that  however  we 
may  compromise  on  our  Western  limits,  we  never  shall  on  the  Eastern.  *  * 

That  James  Madison,  the  Secretary  of  State,  also  seriously  considered  this  view 
may  be  inferred  from  his  instructions  to  Monroe,  of  date  July  29,  1803,  in  which 
he  said: 

Your  inquiries  may  also  be  directed  to  the  question,  whether  any,  and  how  much,  of  what  passes 
for  West  Florida,  be  fairly  included  in  the  territory  ceded  to  us  by  France? 

Later  on  Madison  became  more  positive,  and  he  wrote  Monroe,  April  15, 
1804,  that  : 

It  is  indispensable  that  the  United  States  be  not  precluded  from  such  a  construction,  [of  the 
treaty]  first,  because  they  consider  the  right  as  well  founded;  secondly,  and  principally,  because  it 
is  known  that  a  great  proportion  of  the  most  valuable  lands  between  the  Mississippi  and  the  Perdido 
have  been  granted  by  Spanish  officers  since  the  cession  was  made  by  Spain.  These  illicit  speculations 
can  not  otherwise  be  frustrated  than  by  considering  the  territory  as  included  in  the  cession  made  by 
Spain, 

Monroe  received  assurances  that  negotiation  for  Florida  could  be  entertained 
for  a  money  consideration,  but  he  replied  that  our  government  having  purchased 
that  territory  once  he  should  not  advise  that  it  be  bought  a  second  time.  Talley 
rand  had  by  this  time  taken  a  very  decided  stand  against  our  claim,  and  now 
united  with  Spain  for  the  Iberville  and  the  Mississippi  as  the  eastern  boundary. 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  45 

Pensacola  at  that  time  evidently  marked  the  western  limits  of  Florida  as  they 
understood  it,  as  then  the  place  was  a  fort,  containing  300  Spaniards  from  Vera 
Cruz.  Bancroft  says  in  his  history  (Vol.  Ill,  p.  347): 

This  prior  occupation  is  the  reason  why  afterwards  Pensacola  remained  a  part  of  Florida,  and 
the  dividing  line  between  that  province  and  Louisiana  was  drawn  between  the  bays  of  Pensacola 
and  Mobile. 

This  was  on  the  Perdido  river,  to  which  President  Jefferson  again  referred, 
and  especially  in  his  letter  from  Monticello  to  Mr.  Breckenridge: 

We  have  some  claims,  to  extend  on  the  sea  coast  westwardly  to  the  Rio  Xorte  or  Bravo,  and  better, 
to  go  eastwardly  to  the  Rio  Perdido,  between  Mobile  and  Pensacola,  the  ancient  boundary  of  Louisiana. 
These  claims  will  be  a  subject  of  negotiation  with  Spain,  and  if,  as  soon  as  she  is  at  war,  we  push  them 
strongly  with  one  hand,  holding  out  a  price  in  the  other,  we  shall  certainly  obtain  the  Floridas,  and 
all  in  good  time. 

As  will  be  seen,  Jefferson  always  insisted  that  Louisiana  properly  extended  as 
far  eastward  as  the  Perdido  river,  which  is  situated  between  Mobile  river  and 
Pensacola.  Franquelin's  map  of  1684,  made  direct  from  LaSalle's  own  descrip 
tion  of  his  discovery  at  the  time,  gives  reason  for  this  position.  Louis  XIV  also 
claimed  all  this  portion  of  Florida  in  his  grant  to  Crozat  "in  all  the  lands,  pos 
sessed  by  us,  and  bounded  by  New  Mexico,  and  by  the  lands  of  the  English 
Carolina,  all  the  establishments,  ports,  havens,  rivers,  and  principally  the  port  or 
haven  of  the  Isle  Dauphine,  heretofore  called  Massacre."  This  island  is  west 
ward  of  the  mouth  of  Mobile  Bay.  There  is  also  in  evidence  a  letter  from 
De  Tonty  addressed  to  La  Sal-le,  dated  April  20,  1685.  In  this  he  expresses  his 
great  uneasiness  in  not  having  found  him,  and  says:  "Two  canoes  have  exam 
ined  the  coast  thirty  leagues  toward  Mexico  and  twenty-five  toward  Florida." 
(Falconer's  Mississippi,  29.)  This  was  eastward  from  the  mouth  of  the  Missis 
sippi,  taking  in  the  coast  and  mouths  of  rivers  claimed  by  Spain  as  West  Florida. 
It  also  indicates  that  La  Salle's  men  recognized  the  country  known  as  Florida, 
but  it  was  much  further  east  than  as  claimed  by  Spain. 


THE   UNITED  STATES   DISPOSSESSES  SPAIN. 

After  the  cession  of  1803  the  United  States  insisted  upon  a  more  liberal 
construction  as  to  boundaries,  and  attempted  a  negotiation  with  Spain  at  Madrid 
in  1804.  It  was  contended  that  the  country  west  of  the  Perdido  river,  and  west 
and  south  to  the  river  Bravo  del  Norte,  with  all  the  intermediate  rivers  and  all 
the  countries  drained  by  them  not  previously  acquired  by  the  United  States, 
should  be  included  in  the  terms  of  the  purchase  of  1803  from  France.  The 
Spanish  Government  denied  our  rights  to  any  country  east  and  west  of  the 
Mississippi,  except  as  to  New  Orleans  with  the  country  on  the  east  immediately 
contiguous  to  it,  together  with  the  country  bordering  on  the  west  bank  of  the 
Mississippi.  It  will  be  seen  that  as  to  the  country  directly  east  of  the  island  of 


46  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

New  Orleans  (which  was  what  Spain  previously  claimed  as  West  Florida)  it  was 
admitted  that  onr  nation  was  entitled  to  it.  The  attempt  at  negotiation,  however, 
failed. 

Acting  on  the  popular  belief,  Congress,  in  1812,  authorized  the  general 
assembly  of  Louisiana  to  include  in  its  limits  a  portion  of  West  Florida,  in  the 
face  of  the  claims  of  Spain.  The  people  of  Louisiana  persistently  claimed  it 
as  a  part  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase.  The  people  within  the  disputed  territory 
likewise  made  the  same  claim,  and  insisted  on  separate  recognition. 

On  September  26,  1810,  a  declaration  of  independence  from  Spain  was  made 
by  the  inhabitants  of  West  Florida,  and  a  copy  sent  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States.  The  first  public  notice,  given  to  the  inhabitants  of  West  Florida  of  the 
claim  of  the  United  States  to  the  country,  was  the  proclamation  of  President 
Madison  of  October  27,  1810,  which  was  accompanied  by  a  force  that  dispossessed 
the  government  of  Spain.  In  this  proclamation,  the  President  declares  that  the 
question  of  title  should  remain  open  for  negotiation.  Possession  was  taken  by 
Governor  Claibourne,  December  7,  1810,  and  this  was  followed  by  the  protest  of 
Mr.  Morier,  British  minister  to  Washington,  against  the  acts  of  the  President. 

The  Congress  of  the  United  States,  acting  upon  the  opinion  that  the  cession 
included  the  territory  west  of  the  Perdido  river,  on  February  24,  1804  (2  Stat., 
251),  passed  an  act  for  laying  and  collecting  duties  in  the  disputed  territory.  By 
act  of  March  26,  1804  (2  Stat.,  283),  an  act  was  passed  erecting  Louisiana  into  two 
territories,  the  Territory  of  Orleans  to  contain  the  disputed  territory. 

In  October,  1810,  the  President  issued  his  proclamation  directing  the  governor 
of  Orleans  Territory  to  take  possession  of  the  country  as  far  east  as  the  Perdido. 

April  14,  1812  (2  Stat.,  708),  an  act  was  passed  which  enlarged  the  limits  of 
the  State  of  Louisiana,  and  described  lines  that  include  the  lands  in  controversy. 

May  14,  1812  (2  Stat.,  734),  an  act  was  passed  annexing  the  residue  of  the 
country  west  of  the  Perdido  to  Mississippi  Territory. 

March  3,  1817  (3  Stat.,  371),  Congress  included  a  part  of  the  disputed  terri 
tory  in  the  Territory  of  Alabama. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  political  departments  of  the  government  have 
asserted  the  claim  of  the  United  States  to  such  territory,  and  the  judicial  depart 
ment  followed  in  their  footsteps. 

An  excellent  resume  of  the  various  treaties  involving  the  lands  in  question  will 
be  found  in  the  case  of  Foster  v.  Neilson  (2  Peters,  253). 

The  opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Marshall  in  this  case  does  not  pass  directly  upon 
the  construction  of  the  treaty  of  1803,  but  decides  the  case  upon  the  ground  that 
the  question  of  ownership  of  the  disputed  territory  had  already  been  determined 
by  the  political  department  of  the  government. 

The  court  says,  referring  to  the  various  acts  of  Congress  and  Executive 
orders : 

After  these  acts  of  sovereign  power  over  the  territory  in  dispute,  asserting  the  American  con 
struction  of  the  treaty  by  which  the  Government  claims  it,  to  maintain  the  opposite  construction  in  its 
own  courts  would  certainly  be  an  anomaly  in  the  history  and  practice  of  nations.  If  those  depart- 


THE   LOUISIANA    PURCHASE.  47 

ments  which  are  intrusted  with  the  foreign  intercourse  of  the  nation  which  assert  and  maintain  its 
interests  against  foreign  powers  have  unequivocally  asserted  its  rights  of  dominion  over  a  country  of 
which  it  is  in  possession,  and  which  it  claims  under  a  treaty;  if  the  legislature  has  acted  on  the  con 
struction  thus  asserted,  it  is  not  in  its  own  courts  that  this  construction  is  to  be  denied.  A  question 
like  this  respecting  the  boundaries  of  nations  is,  as  has  been  truly  said,  more  a  political  than  a  legal 
question;  and  in  its  discussion  the  courts  of  every  country  must  respect  the  pronounced  will  of  the 
legislature. 

The  doctrine  of  this  decision  has  been  followed  in  other  cases,  notably  Gar 
cia  v.  Lee,  12  Peters,  515;  Pollard's  Lessee  v.  Files,  2  Howard,  591;  United  States 
v.  Reynes,  9  Howard,  127;  United  States  v.  Lynde,  n  Wallace,  632. 

THE    FLORIDA    WARS. 

Ill  the  war  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  in  1814,  General 
Jackson  was  sent  to  Florida  to  dispossess  the  British  who  had  captured  the  forts 
at  Pensacola,  and  in  1819  the  same  great  general  again  entered  Florida  and  en- 
o-ao-ed  in  a  struggle  with  the  Seminole  Indians.  For  two  hundred  and  fifty  years 

^     o  o  o  *     * 

the  Floridas  were  the  subject  of  contention.  At  one  time  it  was  by  the  Spanish, 
at  another  by  the  French,  and  then  by  the  English  ;  at  one  time  the  English 
governor  of  Georgia  proceeded  as  far  south  as  St.  Augustine  in  Florida  and 
attempted  to  take  the  fort.  In  later  years  the  Americans  figured  actively  against 
the  Spaniards  and  Indians.  The  atrocities  perpetrated  on  the  Florida  battle 
grounds,  between  the  Spaniards  and  the  French,  and  between  each  of  these  and 
the  common  Indian  foe  in  the  earlier  years,  are  perhaps  not  surpassed  in  cruelty 
by  those  of  any  other  portion  of  our  country.  The  time  was  at  last  at  hand  when 
a  new  and  a  better  destiny  was  about  to  have  sway.  Boundary  lines  were  proving 
a  too  feeble  barrier  to  aggressive  and  progressive  Americanism. 

THE   FLORIDA   TREATY. 

Active  and  continuous  negotiations  followed  between  our  government  and 
Spain  ;  finally  that  nation,  already  confronted  by  many  difficulties  at  home  and 
abroad,  acceded  to  our  demands  for  a  cession  of  the  entire  Floridas,  which,  on 
the  22d  of  February,  1819,  was  accomplished.  The  treaty  provided  that : 

His  Catholic  Majesty  cedes  to  the  United  States  in  full  property  and  sovereignty  all  the  territories 
which  belong  to  him  situated  to  the  eastward  of  the  Mississippi,  known  by  the  name  of  East  and 
West  Floridas. 

Following  our  possession  General  Jackson  was  made  governor  of  the  territory. 
In  after  years  Mr.  Adams,  in  his  Memoirs,  referring  to  this  acquisition  of  territory, 
says : 

I  considered  the  signature  of  the  treaty  as  the  most  important  event  in  my  life.  It  was  an  event 
of  magnitude  in  the  history  of  this  Union. 

He  took  much  credit  to  himself  especially  for  the  diplomacy  which  secured 
Spain's  relinquishment  of  her  claims  on  the  Pacific  north  of  the  forty-second  degree 
of  latitude,  and  ranked  this  of  the  greatest  importance  in  the  settlement  of  the  Ore- 


48  THE   LOUISIANA  PURCHASE. 

gon  question;  he  held  that  the  Louisiana  Purchase  gave  no  claim  to  the  country 
west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains.  The  area  acquired  by  the  United  States  in  this 
treaty  was  about  44,639,360  acres,  and  the  total  cost,  with  interest,  was  $6, 489, 768. 
This  includes  the  area  between  the  Perdido  and  the  Mississippi,  which  was  claimed 
as  a  part  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase.  The  Public  Domain  is  in  error  where  the 
area  of  the  Florida  cession  is  given  as  59,268  square  miles,  or  37,931,520  acres. 
This  is  approximately  the  area  of  what  is  now  the  State  of  Florida  (the  exact  area 
being  58,984  square  miles),  the  cession  having  been  70, 107  square  miles.  There 
has  since  been  included  in  the  State  of  Louisiana  4,922,  Mississippi  3,639,  and 
Alabama  2,562,  making  a  total  of  11,123  square  miles. 

OUR  WESTERN  LIMIT  OF  LOUISIANA. 

Our  nation  always  claimed,  as  did  France,  that  the  Louisiana  Purchase  extended 
westward  to  the  Rio  Bravo,  because  of  the  settlement  made  by  La  Salle  when,  on 
his  return  from  France,  failing  to  find  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi,  he  landed  on 
the  coast  of  what  is  now  Texas  ;  therefore,  the  French  always  regarded  the 
mouth  of  the  Del  Norte  as  the  western  limit  of  Louisiana  on  the  Gulf  coast. 
Popple,  an  eminent  English  geographer  at  that  time,  conceded  this  claim  and 
represented  on  his  map  the  Del  Norte  as  the  western  limit  of  Louisiana.  The 
United  States  on  this  ground  claimed  Texas  up  to  1819,  and  then  abandoned  it 
when  Spain  ceded  to  us  the  two  Floridas.  It  was  said  at  the  time  that  the  Span 
iards  prided  themselves  on  their  diplomacy  in  saving  Texas  by  surrendering  Florida; 
indeed,  there  is  much  truth  in  this  boast,  when  we  know  how  intent!}'  resolved 
our  people  were  to  possess  the  Floridas,  and  hence  we  may  well  infer  how  ready 
they  also  were  to  relinquish  very  substantial  claims  in  order  to  acquire  the  long- 
envied  Florida  possessions;  this  view  is  corroborated  by  reference  to  President 
Monroe's  message  to  Congress  December  7,  1819,  concerning  the  treaty  with  Spain 
in  that  year,  wherein  he  says: 

For  territory  ceded  by  Spain  other  territory  of  great  value  (Texas)  to  which  our  claim  was 
believed  to  be  well  founded  was  ceded  bv  the  United  States,  and  in  a  quarter  more  interesting  to  her. 

A  quarter  of  a  century  later  on  there  was  still  a  vivid  remembrance  of  our  old 
claim  to  Texas  under  the  Louisiana  Purchase,  and  when  in  1844  the  annexation 
of  Texas  was  accomplished,  President  Tyler  in  his  message  to  the  Senate  announcing 
the  negotiation  of  that  treaty  said  that  in  event  of  the  approval  of  annexation — 

the  Government  will  have  succeeded  in  reclaiming  a  territory  which  formerly  constituted  a  portion, 
as  is  confidently  believed,  of  its  domain  under  treaty  of  cession  of  1803  by  France  to  the  United  States. 

THE  ANNEXATION   OF  TEXAS. 

The  annexation  of  Texas  was  even  more  strenuously  opposed,  and.  her  possi 
bilities  more  derided  than  were  those  of  Louisiana ;  yet  to-day  this  State  occupies 
a  conspicuous  place  in  the  sisterhood  of  States.  With  her  annexation  we  gained 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  49 

389,795  square  miles  to  our  domain.  As  we  look  upon  her  enterprising  people, 
her  prosperous  communities,  her  spacious  harbors,  her  great  cotton  yield  of 
2,122,701  bales,  valued  at  $74,322,004,  ranking  her  first  among  the  cotton  States 
(leaving  Georgia  second  and  Mississippi  third);  her  nearly  5,000,000  cattle,  valued 
at  $73,638,656;  her  1,148,500  horses,  valued  at  $19,866,178;  her  2,649,914  sheep, 
valued  at  $4,409,457,  with  her  annual  crops  of  cereals  and  fruits,  and  her  rich 
commerce  by  land  and  water — who  does  not  feel  proud  of  the  Texan  annexation, 
and  hold  in  veneration  the  memory  of  the  farsighted  and  patriotic  men  who 
brought  it  about? 

OUR  NATION  CLAIMS  BEYOND  THE  ROCKIES. 

While  the  expedition  of  Lewis  and  Clarke  was  not  conceived  originally  for 
the  purpose  of  attaining  political  ends,  yet  the  disclosures  made  as  to  the  marvel 
ous  country  traversed  by  these  explorers  aroused  a  lively  interest  throughout  our 
nation.  When  finally,  by  the  treaty  of  1819,  we  secured  the  claims  of  Spain 
north  of  the  forty-second  degree  of  latitude,  we  more  than  ever  valued  Gray's 
discovery  of  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  and  the  Astoria  settlement,  through 
which  alone  we  deduced  an  almost  incontestable  right.  At  last  a  national  interest 
had  so  crystallized  about  this  romantic  region  westward  of  the  Rockies  that  soon 
it  was  to  break  forth  in  the  war  cry  of  "Fifty-four,  Forty,  or  Fight." 

The  restoration  of  the  Astoria  settlement  (or  Fort  George),  on  the  Columbia 
river,  to  the  Americans,  pursuant  to  the  first  article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  was  a 
most  substantial  confirmation  by  Great  Britain  of  the  American  claim  ;  it  was 
also  a  stimulus  for  increased  effort  toward  final  recognition  of  our  rights.  Nego 
tiations  with  England  were  resorted  to  by  our  nation,  which  was  represented  by 
Rush  and  Gallatin,  while  England  was  represented  by  Goulburn  and  Robinson. 
Our  plenipotentiaries  proposed  that  the  line  should  be  drawn  from  the  north 
western  extremity  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  north  or  south,  as  the  case  might 
require,  to  the  forty-ninth  parallel  of  latitude,  and  thence  along  that  parallel  west 
ward  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  The  British  commissioners  agreed  to  this  line  as  far 
west  as  the  Rocky  Mountains,  but  no  further.  The  Americans  did  not  assert  that 
the  United  States  had  a  perfect  right  to  that  country,  but  insisted  that  their  claim 
was  good  at  least  against  Great  Britain,  and  in  support  of  this  claim  Gray's  dis 
covery  and  our  exploration  and  settlements  were  relied  on.  Against  these  the 
British  negotiators  submitted  the  voyage  of  Captain  Cook  and  his  discoveries,  and 
those  of  Vancouver  and  other  English  navigators ;  they  insisted  on  an  exclusive 
right  based  on  such  claims.  They  finally  indicated,  however,  a  willingness  to 
accept  as  a  boundary  the  Columbia  River,  with  the  joint  right  at  the  mouth  to  a 
harbor.  On  such  proposals  it  was  impossible  to  unite,  and  accordingly  it  was 
determined  that  for  ten  years  there  should  be  a  joint  occupancy  of  the  country 
without  prejudice  to  the  claims  of  either  nationality.  This  agreement  was  signed 
October  20,  1818,  but  thus  far  no  treaty  had  yet  been  concluded  with  Spain, 

2239 4 


50  THE  LOUISIANA  PURCHASE. 

although  earnest  efforts  were  then  in  progress.  The  Spaniards  declined  to  recog 
nize  the  English  or  any  other  claims,  but  contended  for  the  superiority  of  their 
own  claims  on  the  ground  of  Spanish  discoveries  as  well  as  explorations  as  far 
north  on  the  Pacific  as  the  forty-seventh  degree  of  latitude;  also  by  virtue  of  the 
expedition  of  San  Juan  de  Fuca  as  far  back  as  1592,  and  of  the  voyages  of  other 
Spanish  navigators  later  on  and  long  prior  to  any  British  explorations  or  even 
expeditions. 

Spain  claimed  the  Californias  and  her  dominion  over  that  portion  of  the  coast 
by  actual  occupancy,  while  her  long-established  claims  to  the  territory  northward 
was  ably  argued  by  the  Spanish  minister. 

It  was  noted  as  significant  that  Mr.  Adams,  our  Secretary  of  State,  in  his 
negotiations  with  Spain,  refrained  from  any  controversy  as  to  the  Spanish  claims 
on  the  Pacific.  It  was,  however,  deemed  by  our  Government  an  opportune  time, 
while  adjusting  with  Spain  our  eastern  boundaries,  also  to  provide  for  the 
strengthening  of  our  claims  to  territory  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  which,  by 
virtue  of  the  discovery  of  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  and  its  entrance  by  Captain 
Gray  in  1792,  the  exploration  of  the  same  river  from  its  head  waters  to  the  sea  by 
Lewis  and  Clarke  in  1805  and  1806,  and  by  the  settlement  and  occupancy  of  the 
Astoria  people  in  1811,  gave  to  our  nation  a  claim  regarded  as  conclusive  against 
every  other  nation  except  Spain,  and,  as  to  her,  of  conceding  the  discovery  and 
settlement  north  of  the  Columbia  River,  and  other  discoveries  southward  on  the 
coast.  It  was  therefore  of  value,  while  settling  our  boundaries,  to  procure  a  relin- 
quishment  of  such  claim  as  Spain  might  have  on  that  portion  of  the  continent 
north  of  California,  and  this  was  secured  in  the  treaty  of  February  22,  1819,  and 
is  found  in  Article  III  of  the  treaty,  as  follows : 

The  boundary  line  between  the  two  countries,  west  of  the  Mississippi,  shall  begin  on  the  Gulph 
of  Mexico,  at  the  mouth  of  the  River  Sabine,  in  the  sea,  continuing  north,  along  the  western  bank  of 
that  river  to  the  thirty-second  degree  of  latitude;  thence  by  a  line  due  north  to  the  degree  of  latitude 
where  it  strikes  the  Rio  Roxo  of  Nachitoches  or  Red  River;  then  following  the  course  of  the  Rio 
Roxo  westward,  to  the  degree  of  longitude  100  west  from  London  and  23  from  Washington;  then 
crossing  the  said  Red  River  and  running  thence,  by  a  line  due  north,  to  the  River  Arkansas;  thence 
following  the  course  of  the  Arkansas,  to  its  source,  in  latitude  42  north;  and  thence  by  that  parallel  of 
latitude  to  the  South  Sea.  But  if  the  source  of  the  Arkansas  River  shall  be  found  to  fall 

north  or  south  of  latitude  42,  then  the  line  shall  run  from  the'source  due  south  or  north,  as  the  case 
may  be,  till  it  meets  the  said  parallel  to  the  South  Sea;  * 

The  forty-second  parallel  of  latitude  was  easily  conceded  by  Mr.  Adams  to  be 
the  northern  boundary  of  the  Spanish  possessions  on  the  Pacific,  because  of  the 
undoubted  historic  evidences  not  only  of  discoveries  on  the  coast  line,  but  of 
actual  exploration  and  settlement  by  Spaniards  to  that  parallel.  North  of  this 
parallel  the  coast  line  as  far  as  the  fifty-sixth  degree  of  latitude  was  discovered 
and  many  parts  explored  and  some  named,  but  these  advantages  were  not  followed 
up  by  occupation  and  settlement,  -and  hence  in  favor  of  the  Americans  the  Spanish 
government  seemed  willing  to  relinquish  its  prior  claim  to  all  territory  north  of 
the  forty-second  degree. 


THE    LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  51 

We  thus  closed  an  account  with  a  troublesome  rival.  A  conclusion  was 
reached,  and  what  has  since  been  known  as  the  Florida  treaty  was  signed.  Our 
southern  boundaries  were  at  last  agreed  upon,  together  with  a  cession  of  Spain's 
claim  to  all  the  country  on  the  Pacific  north  of  the  forty-second  parallel  of  lati 
tude,  and  President  Monroe  made  his  announcement  of  this  fact  to  Congress  on 
the  same  dav. 


OUR   NATION   CONTESTS   THE   CLAIMS   OF   ENGLAND   ON   THE   PACIFIC. 

Following  this  treaty  a  resolution  passed  the  House  of  Representatives  pro 
viding:  "That  an  inquiry  should  be  made  as  to  the  situation  of  the  settlements 
on  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  as  to  the  expediency  of  occupying  the  Columbia  river." 
This  was  in  December,  1820.  The  report  which  this  resolution  invited  is  in 
several  respects  a  remarkable  document.  It  claims  for  our  country  all  the  territory 
from  the  forty-second  degree  as  far  north  as  the  fifty-third  degree.  It  bases  our 
rights  not  only  on  discovery  and  exploration,  and  through  the  Florida  treaty,  but 
advances  our  claim  for  the  first  time  from  high  authority  based  on  the  Louisiana 
Purchase.  The  fur  trade  is  referred  to  as  a  traffic  of  great  value;  a  future  indus 
try  in  the  fisheries  is  predicted;  trading  posts  are  recommended  and  immigration 
favored. 

RUSSIA'S    CLAIM    ACKNOWLEDGED. 

In  the  meantime  Russia  was  taking  measures  to  define  its  boundaries  in  the 
Northwest,  and  proclamation  of  the  Emperor  was  made  claiming  all  north  of  the 
fifty-first  parallel.  A  joint  convention  followed  between  our  government  and  that 
of  Russia,  April  5,  1824,  at  St.  Petersburg,  by  which  it  was  provided  that  in  future 
our  citizens  should  form  no  establishments  north  of  54°  40'  north  latitude,  and  that 
the  Russians  should  form  none  south  of  that  parallel.  England  subsequently 
entered  into  an  agreement  with  Russia  by  which  it  was  stipulated  that  the  boundary 
line  between  the  possessions  of  these  two  powers  should  be  as  follows: 

Commencing  from  the  southernmost  point  of  the.  island  called  Prince  of  Wales  Island,  which 
point  lies  in  the  parallel  of  54°  40'  north  latitude,  and  between  the  one  hundred  and  thirty-first  and 
one  hundred  and  thirty-third  degree  of  west  longitude  (meridian  of  Greenwich),  the  said  line  shall 
ascend  to  the  north  along  the  channel  called  Portland  Channel  as  far  as  the  point  of  the  continent 
where  it  strike.;  the  fifty-sixth  degree  of  north  latitude  ;  from  this  last-mentioned  point  the  line  of 
demarcation  shall  follow  the  summit  of  the  mountains  situated  parallel  to  the  coast  as  far  as  the  point 
of  intersection  of  the  one  hundred  and  forty-first  degree  of  west  longitude  (of  the  same  meridian); 
and  finally,  from  the  said  point  of  intersection,  the  said  meridian  line  of  the  one  hundred  and  forty- 
first  degree  in  its  prolongation  as  far  as  the  frozen  ocean.  That  whenever  the  summit  of  the 
mountains  which  extend  in  a  direction  parallel  to  the  coast  from  the  fifty-sixth  degree  of  north  latitude 
to  the  point  of  intersection  of  the  one  hundred  and  forty-first  degree  of  west  longitude  shall  prove  to 
be  at  the  distance  of  more  than  ten  marine  leagues  from  the  ocean,  the  limit  between  the  British 
possessions  and  the  line  of  coast  which  is  to  belong  to  Russia,  as  above  mentioned  (that  is  to  say,  the 
limit  to  the  possessions  ceded  by  this  convention  ),  shall  be  formed  by  a  line  parallel  to  the  winding  of 
the  coast,  and  which  shall  never  exceed  the  distance  of  ten  marine  leagues  therefrom.  *  *  * 


52  THE    LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

RUSSIA    SELI£    ALASKA    TO    THE    UNITED    STATES. 

This  description  was  later  made  the  basis  in  the  negotiations  between  Russia 
and  the  United  States  for  the  sale  of  the  Russian  possessions,  known  as  Alaska. 
to  the  United  States,  and  which  resulted  in  the  treaty  concluded  March  20,  1867. 
Andrew  Johnson  was  then  President,  and  William  H.  Seward  was  Secretary  of 
State.  The  area  when  acquired  had  a  population  of  32,000,  which  was  composed 
of  12,000  Indian  natives,  18,000  Eskimos  and  Aleuts,  descendants  of  the  Mongo 
lian  races  of  Asia,  2,000  Russian  half  breeds,  with  a  few  American  traders  and 
miners.  The  consideration  paid  by  the  United  States  was  $7,200,000;  the  area 
contained  was  383,645,440  acres,  at  a  price  per  acre  of  about  2  cents.  Russia's 
claim  to  this  country  was  based  on  discovery.  Captain  Behring  discovered  the 
mainland  of  North  America  on  the  i8th  of  July,  1741,  and  his  associate  explorer, 
Tschiriknow,  in  another  vessel  discovered  many  of  the  islands  of  the  Aleutian 
Archipelago.  Lower  down  the  coast  Vancouver  made  discovery  in  1790  of  what 
is  now  British  Columbia,  and  upon  this,  England  based  her  claim  as  far  north  as 
the  Russian  possessions,  in  opposition  to  the  claim  of  the  Americans  that  far  north 
based  on  Captain  Gray's  discovery  of  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  in  1792. 

As  another  instance  of  profitable  purchase,  we  are  well  justified  when  we 
refer  to  our  investment  in  Alaska,  and  it  is  amusing  to  be  reminded  of  the  popular 
opinion  entertained  when  the  purchase  was  made  as  to  its  utter  worthlessness.  In 
view  of  recent  extraordinary  developments  in  that  country  it  will  be  of  special 
interest  now  to  quote  some  of  the  opinions  of  eminent  statesmen  in  Congress  when 
the  purchase  was  under  consideration  by  that  body,  July  i,  1868: 

Mr.  Orange  Ferriss,  of  New  York,  said: 

The  people  of  this  country  do  not  want  these  Russian  possessions.  If  submitted  to  them  they 
would  reject  the  treaty  by  a  majority  of  millions.  Alaska,  with  the  Aleutian  Islands,  is  an  inhos 
pitable,  wretched,  and  God-forsaken  region,  worth  nothing,  but  a  positive  injury  and  incumbrance  as 
a  colony  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Washburne,  Wisconsin,  said: 

The  country  is  absolutely  without  value.  *  *  I  tell  gentlemen  who  go  for  Alaska  that 
Greenland  to-day  is  a  better  purchase  than  Alaska. 

Mr.  Hiram  Price,  Iowa,  said: 

Now  that  we  have  got  it  and  can  not  give  it  away  or  lose  it,  I  hope  we  will  keep  it  under  military 
rule  and  get  along  with  as  little  expense  as  possible.  It  is  a  dead  loss  to  us  anyway,  and  the  more 
expense  we  incur  the  worse  it  is  for  the  country  and  the  people. 

Mr.  B.  F.  Butler,  Massachusetts,  July  7,  1868,  said: 

If  we  are  to  pay  for  her  [Russia's]  friendship  this  amount,  I  desire  to  give  her  the  $7, 200,000  and 
let  her  keep  Alaska.  *  *  *  I  have  no  doubt  that  any  time  within  the  last  twenty  years  we  could 
have  had  Alaska  for  the  asking.  I  have  heard  it  was  so  stated  in  the  Cabinets  of  two  Presidents, 
provided  we  would  have  taken  it  as  a  gift.  But  no  man,  except  one  insane  enough  to  buy  the  earth 
quakes  in  St.  Thomas  and  the  ice  fields  in  Greenland,  could  be  found  to  agree  to  any  other  terms  for 
its  acquisition  to  the  country. 

Mr.  Benjamin  F.  Loan,  of  Missouri,  said: 

The  acquisition  of  this  inhospitable  and  barren  waste  would  never  add  one  dollar  to  the  wealth 
of  our  country  or  furnish  homes  to  our  people.  To  suppose  that  anyone  would  willingly  leave  the 


/ 


/  J    f*^V 

7  ?c  /'. 


><  /      r 


M  ',  UA-r 

1 1 l-  \-H  \  \  \ 


\N^- 


^CVO  VJ 

*  VV-       \  i    -       i         i 


}\-         V^^A-Wl 

f  -\-  \    rv^=^--^ 


i.f»  V   -A-        V      .-~-V-   '  \        \ 

A."' — W-'  \     '     '•'         \-   'A         \ 

^S%4"  V%:   \ 

£vv*,   V  ' 


?  ,.,.,  /w"*«4,  J  A"X~r  /  n 
ifc^g^  Tj)L.'  cO.y  f?  0 
E.  /'  .-jr^o  j^AXs-i.-^fe..  ^  i 


\SK 


Heported  gold  discoveries. 

Coal  deposits . 

Copper  deposits. 

Z.a/7d/  Offices . 

Land  district  boundaries. 

Capital,  Surveyor  General's  Office  . 

Routes  to  interior. 

Proposed  Railroads  • 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE. 


53 


mild  climate  and  fruitful  soil  of  the  United  States,  with  its  newspapers  and  churches,  its  railroads  and 
commerce,  its  civilization  and  refinement,  to  seek  a  home  among  the  Aleuts  *  *  *  is  simply  to 
suppose  such  person  insane. 

Mr.  Williams,  of  Pennsylvania,  said: 

Have  the  people  desired  it?  [The  purchase  of  Alaska.]  Not  a  sensible  man  among  them  had 
ever  suggested  it.  The  whole  country  exclaimed  at  once,  when  it  was  made  known  to  it,  against  the 
ineffable  folly,  if  not  the  wanton  profligacy,  of  the  whole  transaction.  There  is  no  man  here,  I  think, 
who  would  have  advised  it.  I  doubt  whether  there  are  twenty  in  this  House  who  would  be  willing  to 
vote  for  it  now,  but  for  the  single  reason  that  the  contract  has  been  made. 

Mr.  Washburne,  of  Illinois,  January  13,  1869  (after  the  Territory  had  been 
purchased,  speaking  on  the  bill  to  provide  a  government  for  the  same),  said: 

The  accounts  which  we  receive  from  that  Territory  of  the  sickness  and  suffering  of  the  people 
who  are  sent  there  show  conclusively  that  it  will  never  be  inhabited  to  any  considerable  extent  by 
white  men. 

Mr.  Ferriss,  New  York,  speaking  on  the  same  bill,  moved  to  strike  out  all 
after  the  enacting  clause  and  insert  the  following: 

That  the  President  be  authorized  to  bind  the  United  States  by  treaty  to  pay  the  sum  of  $7, 200,000 
to  any  respectable  European,  Asiatic,  or  African  power  which  will  accept  a  cession  of  the  Territory  of 
Alaska. 

Such  was  the  unfavorable  estimate  placed  upon  this  purchase,  containing 
599,446  square  miles  of  territory.  But  thirty  years  have  since  elapsed.  Already 
such  an  exhibit  is  made  of  the  present  value  as  well  as  of  the  magnificent  possi 
bilities  of  that  region,  as  to  occasion  wonder  that  any  doubt  should  have  been 
entertained  as  to  the  advisability  of  the  purchase.  The  gold  production  of  last 
year  amounted  to  $2,439,000,  while  the  total  gold  output  since  our  purchase  is 
estimated  to  have  been  nearly  $15,000,000,  or  more  than  twice  the  amount  paid  for 
Alaska.  One  single  mine,  the  Treadwell,  on  Douglas  Island,  has  had  an  average 
annual  output  for  some  years  of  $800,000 — has  paid  to  its  stockholders  up  to  1896 
a  total  sum  of  $6,625,945.  Since  the  development  of  mines  on  the  Yukon  and  its 
tributaries  fabulous  returns  may  be  expected  in  the  next  and  following  years. 

As  showing  the  constant  increase  in  the  Alaskan  gold  yield,  I  present  the 
following  figures,  furnished  by  the  Director  of  the  Mint: 

Production  of  gold  in  Alaska  since  1880. 


Year. 

Amount. 

Year. 

Amount. 

i8$o 

1889  

$900,000 

1881 

15,  ooo 

1800...                    

762,000 

1882 

1891  

yoo,  ooo 

1883 

1892     

I   OOO,  OOO 

1884.                                                                                

2OO,  OOO 

1893  

I    OIO,  IOO 

1885 

1894  

I   1  13,  550 

1886 

1895  

I  615,300 

1887 

1896  

2   055,  700 

1888                                                                             .     ... 

850,  ooo 

1897  

2  439,000 

54  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

THE   FISH   OF   ALASKA. 

In  1897  the  fish  product  was  valued  at  $2,977,019.  Not  only  salmon,  but 
cod,  halibut  and  herring  abound.  In  1897,  34  canneries  and  14  salteries  exported 
1,086,650  cases  and  15,888  barrels  of  fish.  The  tin  alone  consumed  in  these  can 
neries  is  valued  at  about  half  a  million  dollars.  In  response  to  an  inquiry  addressed 
to  the  United  States  Commission  of  Fish  and  Fisheries,  the  honorable  Commis 
sioner  replied  with  the  following  most  interesting  statement: 

Complying  with  your  request  for  an  approximate  statement  of  the  aggregate  value  of  the  Alaskan 
fisheries  since  the  purchase  of  the  Territory,  I  have  based  an  estimate  on  the  best  figures  available, 
although  for  many  of  the  years  only  very  meager  data  are  obtainable.  The  total  value  of  these  fish 
eries,  excluding  the  whale  fishery  prosecuted  in  Alaskan  waters  by  vessels  from  San  Francisco,  appears 
to  have  been  about  167,890,000.  It  is  possible  that  this  sum  is  as  much  as  10  per  cent  above  or  below 
the  actual  amount. 

This  opportunity  is  taken  to  draw  your  attention  to  the  remarkable  productiveness  of  the  Alaskan 
waters  as  regards  salmon.  During  the  fifteen  years  that  have  elapsed  since  the  inauguration  of  salmon 
canning,  7,065,422  cases  of  salmon,  each  containing  48  one-pound  cans,  and  144,000  barrels  of  salt 
salmon  have  been  prepared.  The  gross  weight  of  the  fish  thus  utilized  was  610,995,640  pounds,  and 
the  market  value  of  the  output  was  about  $30,000,000. 

THE   ALASKAN    FUR   SEALS. 

The  fur  industry  has  long  been  a  most  lucrative  traffic,  and  China  for  many 
years  was  the  place  of  shipment  and  market.  Captain  Cook,  in  one  of  his  voyages, 
touched  at  Unalaska  in  1776,  where  he  found  the  Russians  even  at  that  early  day. 
In  mentioning  this  circumstance,  he  says: 

There  are  Russians  upon  all  the  principal  islands  between  Unalaska  and  Kamschatka  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  collecting  furs.  Their  great  object  is  the  sea  beaver  and  otter. 

The  Alaska  Commercial  Company  possessed  a  monopoly  of  the  fur-seal  indus 
try  under  a  twenty  years'  lease  from  our  Government,  and  at  its  expiration,  in  1890, 
the  company  had  paid  into  the  United  States  Treasury  about  $6,000,000.  The  fur 
sales  by  this  one  company  are  estimated  to  have  equaled  $33, 000,000.  The  North 
American  Commercial  Company,  under  its  twenty  years'  lease,  beginning  April  i, 
1890,  paid  $340,395,  and  there  is  claimed  from  said  company  the  further  sum  of 
$1,134,553  on  account  of  the  same  lease,  for  the  privilege  of  taking  fur-seal  skins 
on  the  Pribilof  Islands.  This  one  item  of  fur  seals,  then,  represents  a  value  inuring 
to  the  United  States  Treasury  exceeding  the  entire  price  paid  Russia  for  all  of 
Alaska. 

UNITED   STATES   LAND   DISTRICTS. 

Three  land  districts  are  now  created  there,  with  offices  at  Sitka,  Rampart,  and 
St.  Michael,  and  Congress  has  recently  extended  the  public-land  laws,  with  certain 
modifications,  to  that  Territory. 

This,  then,  is  the  Alaskan  domain,  with  an  extreme  length  of  2,000  miles,  and 
larger  in  area  than  the  thirteen  original  States,  and  for  this  domain  our  government 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


THE   LOUISIANA    PURCHASE.  55 

paid  2  cents  per  acre.  This  is  the  Alaska  for  which  the  great  Secretary  Seward 
suffered  much  criticism.  He  lived,  however,  to  see  substantial  evidence  of  the 
value  of  his  purchase,  and  confidently  predicted  that  the  future  would  demon 
strate  its  exceeding  importance  to  our  country.  In  his  last  days  he  fondly  and 
often  referred  to  this  purchase.  A  friend  at  this  time  said  to  him:  "Mr.  Seward, 
what  do  you  consider  the  most  important  measure  of  your  political  career?" 
' '  The  purchase  of  Alaska, ' '  he  said,  ' '  but  it  will  take  the  people  a  generation 
to  find  it  out." 

JOINT  OCCUPANCY  AND  NEGOTIATION. 

President  Monroe,  and  after  him  President  Adams,  continued  to  call  the 
attention  of  Congress  to  the  necessity  for  military  posts  on  the  Pacific  within  our 
claim,  and  each  time  the  discussions  in  Congress  elicited  more  valuable  informa 
tion  respecting  the  country,  its  productiveness,  its  climatic  advantages  and  its 
future  commercial  importance  to  the  nation. 

The  ten-year  period,  provided  for  joint  occupancy  with  Great  Britain  on  the 
Pacific,  being  about  to  expire,  negotiations  between  our  government  and  that 
nation  were  renewed,  and  both  nations  repeated  their  previous  offers,  with  some 
modifications  by  both  parties.  Mr.  Gallatin  insisted  for  the  line  of  the  forty- 
ninth  degree,  while  the  British  named  the  Columbia  River,  with  the  right  of 
navigation,  though  they  were  also  willing  to  add  some  detached  territory  from 
Bullfinches  Harbor  to  the  Straits  of  Fuca,  and  from  the  Pacific  to  Hoods  Channel. 

The  British  ultimatum  was  in  the  following  language  : 

The  boundary  line  between  the  territories  claimed  by  His  Britannic  Majesty  and  those  claimed 
by  the  United  States  to  the  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  shall  be  drawn  due  west  along  the  forty- 
ninth  parallel  of  north  latitude  to  the  point  where  that  parallel  strikes  the  great  northeasternmost 
branch  of  the  Oregon  or  Columbia  River — marked  in  the  maps  as  McGillivrays  River — thence  down 
along  the  middle  of  the  Oregon  or  Columbia  to  its  junction  with  the  Pacific  Ocean,  the  navigation  of 
the  whole  channel  being  perpetually  free  to  the  subjects  and  citizens  of  both  parties. 

THE    MYSTERY   OF    THE    FORTY-NINTH    PARALLEL. 

It  seems  incomprehensible  that  our  early  statesmen  should  differ  so  radically 
as  to  the  northern  parallel  claimed  by  us  as  a  boundary  from  the  Rocky  Moun 
tains  to  the  Pacific,  some  claiming  the  forty-ninth  parallel  and  others  claiming 

54°  40'. 

The  evidences  which  I  shall  present  impel  me  to  the  conclusion  that  our 
inconsistent  claims  result  largely  from  a  mistaken  belief  as  to  what  occurred 
pursuant  to  the  treaty  of  Utrecht.  As  has  been  seen  by  the  reading  of  the  letter 
of  Mr.  Jefferson  to  Mr.  Mellish,  he  states  that  "France  and  England  agreed  to 
appoint  commissioners  to  settle  the  boundary  between  their  possessions,"  and  that 
"those  commissioners  settled  it  at  the  forty-ninth  degree  of  latitude."  Hence  he 
concludes  that  such  parallel  became  the  northern  boundary  of  Louisiana,  this 
territory  being  then  a  possession  of  France. 


56  THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE. 

As  to  the  original  error  and  the  evidences  in  explanation,  I  submit  the  following 
very  interesting  data : 

[Extract   from  "Papers    respecting   the   boundary  of  the  United    States,  delivered    to  Lord  Harrowby  September  5, 

1804,"  by  Mr.  Monroe.] 

By  the  tenth  article  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  [1713],  it  is  agreed  "that  France  shall  restore  to 
Great  Britain  the  bay  and  straits  of  Hudson,  together  with  all  lands,  seas,  seacoasts,  rivers,  and  places 
situate  in  the  said  bay  and  straits  which  belong  thereto,"  &c. 

It  is  also  agreed  "that  commissaries  shall  be  forthwith  appointed  by  each  Power  to  determine, 
within  a  year,  the  limits  between  the  said  bay  of  Hudson  and  the  places  appertaining  to  the  French  ; 
and  also  to  describe  and  settle,  in  like  manner,  the  boundaries  between  the  other  British  and  French 
colonies  in  those  parts." 

Commissaries  were  accordingly  appointed  by  each  Power,  who  executed  the  stipulations  of  the 
treaty  in  establishing  the  boundaries  proposed  by  it.  They  fixed  the  northern  boundary  of  Canada  and 
Louisiana  by  a  line  beginning  on  the  Atlantic,  at  a  cape  or  promontory  in  58°  30'  north  latitude ; 
thence,  south westwardly,  to  the  lake  Mistasin  ;  thence,  further  southwest,  to  the  latitude  49°  north 
from  the  equator,  and  along  that  line  indefinitely. 

At  the  time  this  treaty  was  formed  France  possessed  Canada  and  Louisiana, 

By  the  fourth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1763,  France  ceded  to  Great  Britain  Canada,  Nova  Scotia, 
&c.,  in  the  north;  and,  by  the  seventh  article,  the  bay  and  port  of  Mobile,  and  all  the  territory  which 
she  possessed  to  the  left  of  the  Mississippi,  except  the  town  and  island  of  New  Orleans. 

By  the  seventh  article  it  was  also  stipulated,  that  a  line  to  be  drawn  along  the  middle  of  the 
Mississippi,  from  its  source  to  the  river  Iberville,  and  thence  along  the  middle  of  that  river,  and  the 
lakes  Maurepas  and  Pontchartrain,  to  the  sea,  should  be  the  boundary  between  the  British  territory  to 
the  eastward,  and  Louisiana  to  the  west.  At  that  time  it  was  understood,  as  it  has  been  ever  since, 
till  very  lately,  that  the  Mississippi  took  its  source  in  some  mountain  at  least  as  high  north  as  the 
forty-ninth  degree  of  north  latitude. 

By  the  treaty  of  1783,  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  the  boundary  between 
*  *  *  to  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  and  through  that  lake  to  the  northwestern  point  thereof;  thence, 
a  due  west  course,  to  the  Mississippi. 

By  joining,  then,  the  western  boundary  of  Canada  to  its  northern  in  the  Lake  of  the  Woods,  and 
closing  both  there,  it  follows  that  it  was  the  obvious  intention  of  the  ministers  who  negotiated  the 
treaty,  and  of  their  respective  Governments,  that  the  United  States  should  possess  all  the  territory 
lying  between  the  lakes  and  the  Mississippi,  south  of  the  parallel  of  the  forty-ninth  degree  of  north 
latitude.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  courses  which  are  afterwards  pursued  by  the  treaty,  since  they  are 
precisely  those  which  had  been  established  between  Great  Britain  and  France  in  former  treaties.  By 
running  due  west  from  the  northwestern  point  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  to  the  Mississippi,  it. must 
have  been  intended,  according  to  the  lights  before  them,  to  take  the  parallel  of  the  forty-ninth  degree 
of  latitude  as  established  under  the  treaty  of  Utrecht ; 

No  evidence  adopting  the  forty -ninth  parallel. — Mr.  Monroe  does  not  give  his 
authority  for  this  assertion  respecting  the  adoption  of  the  forty-ninth  parallel  by 
the  commissaries  under  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  in  1713,  but  it  is  presumed  to  have 
been  based  on  instructions  from  Mr.  Jefferson,  as  he  makes  the  same  assertion  in 
his  correspondence  with  others,  and  especially  in  his  letter  of  December  31,  1816, 
to  Mr.  Mellish,  the  geographer,  to  which  I  have  referred. 

Mr.  Jefferson  does  not  appear  to  have  consulted  the  opinions  of  any  of  the 
many  eminent  persons  well  qualified  in  every  respect  to  throw  light  on  the  sub 
ject,  or  to  have  searched  the  archives  of  any  nation,  but  to  have  drawn  his  own 
conclusions  and  opinions  as  to  the  boundaries  of  Louisiana,  by  consulting  the 
few  works  in  his  limited  library  at  Monticello,  as  will  be  seen  by  his  letters  to 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE.  57 

Duponceau,  Dunbar,  Monroe,  and  others  in  1803  and   1804,  and  then  he  promul 
gated  his  views  in  the  form  of  a  memoir. 

One  of  the  principal  articles  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  had  reference  to  the 
definition  of  the  boundaries  between  the  French  and  English  possessions  in  North 
America,  and  among  others  the  boundary  between  the  French  possessions  of 
Canada  and  Louisiana  and  the  territory  of  the  Hudson  Bay  Company,  then  the 
only  land  under  British  control  in  that  part  of  the  country.  The  forty-ninth 
parallel  was  never  mentioned  as  a  boundary  in  any  treaty  or  convention  until  this 
assertion  of  Mr.  Monroe  in  his  letter  to  Lord  Harrowby  of  September  5,  1804;  in 
fact,  its  first  appearance  in  any  ratified  treaty  is  that  of  the  convention  of  October 
20,  1818. 

Both  Mr.  Jefferson  and  Mr.  Monroe  appear  to  have  taken  it  for  granted  that 
because  the  treaty  called  for  the  appointment  of  commissaries  they  were  really 
appointed,  and  had  actually  marked  the  Hue  of  the  forty-ninth  parallel,  and 
both  insisted  on  the  correctness  of  their  statement.  The  English  authorities, 
much  better  informed  on  this  subject,  and  perfectly  aware  that  the  forty-ninth 
parallel  had  never  before  been  mentioned  as  a  boundary  line,  and  also  aware  that 
the  southwest  boundary  of  the  Hudson  Bay  Company's  territory  was  the  northern 
line  of  Louisiana,  quietly  jumped  at  the  proposal,  and  made  no  attempt  to  contro 
vert  this  assertion,  made  by  Mr.  Monroe,  thereby  gaining  all  the  territory  between 
the  forty-ninth  parallel  and  the  northwest  point  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  (about 
36  miles),  as  the  boundary  would,  by  right,  have  followed  the  height  of  land 
defining  the  southern  limits  of  the  territory  of  the  Hudson  Bay  Company  as 
given  in  the  original  charter. 

Jeffery's  map  of  1762,  showing  the  southern  boundary  as  described  above,  is 
reproduced  in  the  u  Report  on  the  boundaries  of  Ottawa,  1873,"  a  report  of  a  spe 
cial  committee  appointed  by  the  Dominion  Parliament  to  inquire  into  the  disputed 
boundaries  of  Ottawa  and  Manitoba. 

Relative  to  the  statement  in  regard  to  the  commissaries  under  the  treaty  of 
Utrecht  marking  the  forty-ninth  parallel,  I  have  since  found  the  following  in  the 
Notes  upon  the  Foreign  Treaties  of  the  United  States,  etc.,  by  John  H.  Haswell, 
of  the  Department  of  State,  January,  1889,  page  1324: 

There  is  no  evidence,  either  in  the  French  or  British  archives,  of  the  appointment  of  a  boundary 
commission  under  the  treaty  of  Utrecht ;  and  in  a  memorial  of  the  Hudson  Bay  Company,  marked  as 
received  August  13,  1719,  it  is  stated  that  "the  running  of  a  line  betwixt  the  English  and  French 
territories  yet  remained  to  be  done."  (Mr.  Bancroft  to  Mr.  Fish,  Sept.  i,  1873.  MS.  Dept.  of  State.) 

This  view  is  further  confirmed  by  Mr.  Greenhow,  who  says : 

The  conclusion  would  be  undeniable,  if  the  premises  on  which  it  is  founded  were  correct.  The 
tenth  article  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  does  certainly  stipulate  that  commissaries  should  be  appointed 
by  the  governments  of  Great  Britain  and  France,  respectively,  to  determine  the  line  of  separation 
between  their  possessions  in  the  northern  part  of  America  above  specified ;  and  there  is  reason  to 
believe  that  persons  were  commissioned  for  that  object:  but  there  is  no  evidence  which  can  be  admitted 
as  establishing  the  fact  that  a  line  running-  along  the  forty-ninth  parallel  of  latitude,  or  any  other  line, 
was  ever  adopted,  or  even  proposed,  by  those  commissaries,  or  by  their  governments,  as  the  limit  of  any 
pait  of  the  French  possessions  on  the  north,  and  of  the  British  Hudson's  Bay  territories  on  the  south. 


58  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

It  is  true  that  on  some  maps  of  northern  America,  published  about  the  middle 
of  the  last  century,  a  line  drawn  along  the  forty-ninth  parallel  does  appear  as  a 
part  of  the  boundary  between  the  French  possessions  and  the  Hudson  Bay  terri 
tories,  as  settled  according  to  the  treaty  of  Utrecht.  But  on  other  maps,  which 
are  deservedly  held  in  higher  estimation,  a  different  line,  following  the  course  of 
the  highlands  encircling  Hudson  Bay,  is  presented  as  the  limit  of  the  Hudson 
Bay  territory,  agreeable  to  the  same  treaty;  and  in  other  maps  enjoying  equal 
if  not  greater  consideration  published  under  the  immediate  direction  of  the 
British  government,  no  line  separating  those  BritisJi  possessions  from  Louisiana 
or  Canada  is  to  be  seen. 

In  the  other  works,  political,  historical,  and  geographical,  which  have  been 
examined  with  reference  to  this  question,  nothing  has  been  found  calculated  to 
sustain  the  belief  that  any  line  of  separation  was  ever  settled  or  even  proposed,  nor 
has  any  trace  of  such  an  agreement  been  discovered  in  the  archives  of  the  depart 
ment  of  foreign  affairs  of  France,  which  have  been  searched  with  the  view  of 
ascertaining  the  fact. 

When  Monroe  became  President  he  still  maintained  his  theory  as  to  the  forty- 
ninth  parallel,  and  his  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Adams,  commenting  on  our  claim, 
July  22,  1823,  sa-id: 

The  right  of  the  United  States  from  forty-second  to  forty-ninth  degrees  on  the  Pacific  we  consider 
as  unquestionable. 

Again,  in  June,  1826,  Mr.  Clay,  being  Secretary  of  State  for  President  Adams, 
instructed  our  minister  that  he  was  authorized  to  offer  an  extension  of  the  line  of 
49°  to  the  Pacific  as  a  boundary.  He  said: 

This  is  our  ultimatum,  and  you  may  so  announce  it.  We  can  consent  to  no  line  more  favorable 
to  Great  Britain. 

The  most  pronounced  declaration  hostile  to  these  repeated  views  was  that 
enunciated  by  the  Democratic  National  Convention  in  1844,  which  nominated  Mr. 
Polk  for  the  Presidency.  It  was  unanimously  resolved  by  that  convention— 

That  our  title  to  the  whole  of  Oregon  is  clear  and  unquestionable;  that  no  portion  of  the  same 
ought  to  be  ceded  to  England  or  any  other  power. 

And  it  was  urged  against  Mr.  Clay  that  in  1826,  while  Secretary,  in  his  instruc 
tions  to  Mr.  Gallatin,  he  first  declared  that  Great  Britain  had  not,  and  could  not 
make  out  "even  a  colorable  title  to  any  portion  of  the  northwest  coast,"  yet  in 
the  same  communication  he  had  authorized  Mr.  Gallatin  to  "propose  the  annul 
ment  of  the  convention  of  1818  and  the  extension  of  the  line  on  the  parallel  of 
49°  from  the  eastern  side  of  the  '  Stony  Mountains '  to  the  Pacific,  together  with 
the  free  navigation  of  the  Columbia." 

Mr.  Polk  was  pledged  to  retain  the  whole  of  the  Oregon  territory,  but  when  he 
became  President  he,  too,  felt  obliged  to  follow  his  predecessors,  though  not  con 
ceding  to  Great  Britain  any  right  whatever.  He,  however,  would  not  agree  to 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE.  59 

allow  the  free  navigation  of  the  Columbia.  He  considered  that  all  offers  by  our 
negotiators  of  the  forty-ninth  parallel  could  not,  with  any  hope  of  success,  be 
enlarged  by  him.  Three  separate  attempts  had  been  made  under  Presidents 
Monroe  and  Adams,  in  1818,  1824,  anc^  1826,  and  all  on  the  line  of  the  forty-ninth 
degree,  and  Tyler  repeated  the  offer  in  1843.  Polk  accepted  this  parallel  as  a 
boundary — not  as  a  right,  but  as  a  compromise.  In  his  message  to  Congress  in 
1845  he  submitted  such  views. 

When  the  treaty  of  1846  was  before  the  Senate  for  ratification  Mr.  Benton 
expressed  the  view  that  the  forty-ninth  parallel  was  ours  as  a  matter  of  right,  as  it 
was  also  a  line  of  convenience  between  the  two  nations.  He  argued  that  it  parted 
the  two  systems  of  water — those  of  the  Columbia  and  those  of  the  Fraser ;  that  it 
also  conformed  to  the  actual  discoveries  and  settlements  of  both  parties.  There 
was  not  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  he  said,  so  long  and  so  straight  a  line  or  one  so 
adapted  to  the  rights  of  the  parties  and  the  features  of  the  country.  He  insisted 
that  the  forty-ninth  parallel  had  been  agreed  upon  by  the  commissioners : 

This  boundary  was  acquiesced  in  for  a  hundred  years.  By  proposing  to  follow  it  to  the  summit 
of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  the  British  Government  admits  its  validity;  by  refusing  to  follow  it  out,  they 
became  obnoxious  to  the  charge  of  inconsistency. 

To  those  who  believed  as  did  Mr.  Benton  on  this  line,  and  who  also  believed 
that  the  Louisiana  Purchase  extended  to  the  Pacific,  this  position  was  consistent; 
but  to  those  who  claimed  that  our  title  to  the  country  westward  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains  was  derived  through  discovery,  or  through  the  relinquishment  of  the 
Spanish  claim,  or  both,  the  forty-ninth  parallel  could  only  be  accepted  as  Mr.  Polk 
held,  as  a  compromise,  but  not  as  a  fixed  right,  and  such  view  is  without  any 
original  authority  to  sustain  it,  so  far  as  it  may  be  derived  through  the  treaty  of 
Utrecht.  If  our  right  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  was  obtained  through  Captain 
Gray's  discovery,  and  through  the  relinquishment  of  the  Spanish  claim,  then,  as 
against  Great  Britain,  our  line  should  have  been  54°  40',  and  all  reference  to 
previous  adjustments  east  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  on  the  line  of  49°  for  boundary 
between  the  English  and  French  possessions  could  have  no  application  to  the 
country  west  of  those  mountains.  France  had  no  possessions  in  that  portion  of 
the  continent.  Even  though  commissioners  had  settled  a  boundary,  as  Mr.  Monroe 
believed,  their  action  could  not  have  had  in  contemplation  country  not  in  pos 
session  of  France. 

CONTINUED   NEGOTIATION. 

The  second  negotiation  on  the  line  of  the  forty-ninth  parallel,  in  which  Mr. 
Gallatin  appeared  for  the  United  States,  progressed,  and  great  interest  was  mani 
fested  by  the  people  of  both  nations. 

Again  the  parties  failed  to  agree,  and  again  another  extension  of  time  was 
allowed  for  joint  occupancy,  this  time,  however,  for  an  indefinite  period,  either 
party  being  at  liberty  to  abrogate  the  extension  by  giving  one  year's  notice. 
The  United  States  closed  this  second  attempt  by  adhering  to  the  claim  for  all 


60  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

the  country  from  the  forty-second  to  the  forty-ninth  degrees  of  north  latitude. 
The  debate  attending  the  conference  was  marked  by  a  high  order  of  ability,  the 
diplomatic  skill,  clear  logic,  and  industrial  research  shown  by  Mr.  Gallatin  being 
especially  conspicuous.  The  conference  was  followed  by  a  long  interval  of  time, 
during  which  little  was  said  or  done  in  Congress  in  reference  to  the  disputed  terri 
tory.  Among  the  people,  however,  much  advance  was  quietly  being  made. 
Exploring  parties,  trading  companies  and  missionaries  were  each  year  finding 
their  way  by  water  and  by  land  to  the  country.  Associations  were  formed  in 
various  States  to  emigrate  to  what  now  became  more  generally  known  as  the 
"Oregon  country."  These  people  in  turn  opened  up  communication  with  those 
left  behind,  thereby  adding  much  to  the  general  knowledge  of  the  country  and 
creating  renewed  interest  in  that  region;  this  renewal  of  interest  brought  addi 
tional  influence  iipon  Congress  from  the  more  western  States  in  the  form  of 
petitions  from  legislatures  and  public  assemblages  demanding  action  on  the  part 
of  the  government  and  a  more  aggressive  assertion  of  our  rights  to  the  country 
claimed. 

HALL  j.  KELLEY'S  IMMIGRATION  SCHEMES. 

Perhaps  no  one  at  so  early  a  date  did  so  much  to  arouse  public  attention  to 
Oregon  as  did  Hall  J.  Kelley,  a  graduate  of  Harvard  University,  of  pious  yet  sus 
picious  temper,  and  a  lover  of  travel  and  exploration.  He  was  peculiar  in  many 
characteristics,  and  was  thought  by  many  at  the  time  to  be  a  mere  enthusiast  and 
dreamer,  yet  he  was  a  man  of  learning,  undaunted  courage,  and  inflexible  deter 
mination.  His  self-sacrifices  and  adventures  read  at  the  present  time  more  like 
romance,  as  his  observations  and  conclusions  pointing  to  the  future  of  the  country 
seem  like  prophecy.  As  early  as  1815  he  became  active  in  his  attention  to  that 
disputed  domain.  He  was  constantly  acquiring  information  from  the  trapper,  the 
explorer,  and  the  navigator.  He  proclaimed  the  supreme  right  of  our  country  to 
that  land,  and  believed  it  a  duty  to  acquire  it,  not  only  for  its  value  in  a  commercial 
sense  and  for  expansion  of  American  empire,  but  also  for  the  humanitarian  work  of 
Christianizing  the  Indian.  He  organized  a  land  expedition  in  1828,  which  failed 
because  of  lack  of  confidence  in  the  success  of  the  undertaking.  This  was  followed 
later  by  an  attempt  to  fit  out  an  expedition  by  sea,  with  a  view  of  locating  a  colony 
on  Puget  Sound.  This  also  failed.  In  1829  he  incorporated  a  society  for  Oregon 
immigration.  Lands  were  to  be  cultivated,  towns  built,  ports  established,  trade 
opened  by  water  to  the  islands  and  to  the  Orient,  and  schools  and  churches  were 
to  be  encouraged.  He  lectured  and  printed  much  information  on  Oregon,  and  was 
the  author  of  a  variety  of  books  and  pamphlets  on  his  favorite  subject.  A  circular 
was  published  and  distributed  far  and  wide;  it  contained  a  description  of  the 
country  and  of  the  routes  of  travel,  with  a  glowing  outlook  for  the  future.  Con 
gress  was  memorialized  to  aid  his  undertaking,  and  prominent  men  connected  with 
the  Government  were  importuned  to  cooperate  with  him  in  securing  a  grant  of 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  6l 

25  square  miles  of  land  in  the  Columbia  River  Valley  for  colonial  purposes.  In 
1834  he  reached  Oregon,  after  long  and  most  adventuresome  travel,  and  there,  in 
that  promised  land,  suffered  in  ways  which  clouded  the  happiness  of  his  after  life, 
which  continued  until  the  ripe  age  of  85  years.  On  his  return  his  published 
accounts  of  Oregon  were  remarkably  accurate;  and  his  suggestions  for  improving 
the  entrance  of  the  Columbia  river,  with  information  as  to  the  shipbuilding  facili 
ties  of  Puget  Sound,  and  the  timber,  minerals,  climate,  and  soils  of  Oregon,  were 
all  verified  by  closer  observation  in  later  years.  Senators  Linn  and  Benton,  in  their 
long  struggle  in  the  United  States  Senate  for  our  title  to  Oregon,  had  frequent 
occasion  to  consult  Hall  J.  Kelley  as  an  authority  on  that  country.  He  induced 
many  persons  to  go  there,  who  in  turn  encouraged  others,  and  substantial  benefits 
followed,  due  directly  and  indirectly  to  his  efforts.  He  lived  to  behold  the  growth 
of  n  mighty  empire,  and  the  formation  of  States  and  Territories,  from  what  was  a 
comparatively  unexplored  and  unknown  region  when  he  first  published  to  the 
world  a  narrative  of  its  then  incredible  resources,  with  a  foresight  of  its  maenifi- 

o  o 

cent  destiny.  It  may,  indeed,  be  true,  as  was  said  of  him,  that  he  was  more 
capable  of  forming  grand  schemes  than  of  carrying  them  to  a  successful  issue,  yet 
history  owes  to  his  memory  the  credit  of  acknowledging  the  invaluable  aid  which 
he  rendered  his  country  by  his  unselfish  devotion  and  lifelong  labors. 

THE   WILKES   EXPLORING   EXPEDITION. 

Still  later  came  the  publications  by  the  Government  of  Captain  Wilkes's 
exploring  expedition,  which  reached  Oregon  in  the  spring  of  1841.  To  Wilkes 
was  intrusted  the  command  of  a  squadron  composed  of  the  sloops  of  war  Vincennes 
and  Peacock,  the  brig  Porpoise,  the  ship  Relief,  and  tenders  Sea  GW/and  Flying 
Fish.  Eminent  scientists  accompanied  the  expedition.  Surveys  were  made  of 
the  Columbia  river,  and  most  valuable  scientific  and  general  information  obtained 
of  the  country  and  of  the  aboriginal  inhabitants,  as  well  as  of  the  British  fur- 
trading  companies,  all  of  which,  being  published  officially  and  under  the  super 
vision  of  the  government,  attracted  greater  attention  to  the  publications.  The 
reports  covered  a  wide  range  of  subjects,  and  being  more  in  detail  than  the  obser 
vations  by  Lewis  and  Clarke,  thirty-five  years  before,  may  be  said  to  be  the  most 
valuable  and  reliable  of  any  official  information  obtained  of  the  Oregon  country. 
Numerous  books  in  various  languages  were  the  result  of  this  expedition,  though 
it  should  also  be  said  that  other  countries  than  Oregon  were  included  in  Wilkes's 
expedition,  and  were  described  in  his  very  interesting  reports. 

President  Tyler,  in  his  message  to  Congress  December  7,  1842,  in  referring  to 
the  Oregon  question,  assured  that  body  he  should  "not  delay  to  urge  on  Great 
Britain  the  importance  of  its  early  settlement."  Bills  were  introduced  extending 
the  laws  of  the  United  States  over  that  country,  conferring  grants  of  lands  upon 
settlers,  and  establishing  a  line  of  forts,  with  other  protective  assurances. 


62  THE   LOUISIANA    PURCHASE. 

AMERICAN    SETTLEMENTS    ENCOURAGED. 

Much  discussion  arose  in  the  consideration  of  these  measures  in  Congress. 
Senator  Benton,  as  before  mentioned,  based  our  right  to  Oregon  on  the  Louisiana 
Purchase,  arguing  that  it  could  be  construed  to  establish  the  forty-ninth  parallel 
as  our  northern  boundary  and  hence  to  include  this  territory,  as  he  asserted  this 
boundary  to  have  been  fixed  by  commissaries  appointed  pursuant  to  the  treat}-  of 
Utrecht. 

Senator  Benton,  in  that  memorable  speech,  insisted  that  occupancy  would 
accomplish  more  than  treaties.  He  said: 

I  now  go  for  vindicating  our  rights  on  the  Columbia,  and,  as  the  first  step  toward  it,  passing  this 
bill  and  making  these  grants  of  land  which  will  soon  place  thirty  or  forty  thousand  rifles  beyond  the 
Rocky  Mountains. 

The  Senate  in  1843  passed  the  bill,  introduced  in  that  body,  containing  the 
guaranties  as  to  governmental  protection,  and  land  grants  to  individuals  who 
should  settle  in  that  country,  with  assurances  as  to  immediate  occupation  by  the 
General  Government.  These  inducements  were  sufficient.  Without  waiting  for 
the  enactment  of  this  bill  into  law,  large  bodies  of  people  commenced  their  march 
for  Oregon  and,  uniting  at  a  point  in  Missouri,  in  June,  1843,  previously  agreed 
upon,  they  traveled  together  across  the  continent.  The}-  comprised  the  first  large 
body  of  American  citizens  to  reach  the  disputed  territory.  To  this  movement, 
more  than  to  any  previous  one,  may  we  credit  the  first  real  promise  for  the  perma 
nent  occupation  of  the  country  under  the  American  flag,  with  the  pledge  of  the 
nation  to  defend  it  at  all  hazards.  The  spirit  of  these  daring  men  and  pioneers, 
and  their  heroic  courage  in  asserting  our  rights  in  the  far-distant  Oregon,  produced 
for  them  a  universal  feeling  of  admiration  throughout  the  country,  and  with  it  an 
expression  of  opinion  that  the  moment  had  arrived  when  war  should  take  the  place 
of  debate,  and  that  further  to  delay  the  assertion  of  our  rights  would  be  national 
dishonor. 

"  FIFTY- FOUR,    FORTY,    OR   FIGHT." 

As  President  Jefferson,  in  1803,  was  pressed  on  by  the  appeals  from  the 
planters  on  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi,  and  the  earnest  demands  of  his  impatient 
countrymen  everywhere,  so  was  President  Tyler,  in  1843,  moved  to  serve  a  final 
notice  upon  England  that  further  negotiation  must  cease,  and  he  earnestly  recom-- 
mended  to  Congress  the  immediate  establishment  of  fortified  places  along  the 
route  to  Oregon.  In  his  annual  message  of  December  5,  1843,  ne  proclaimed  it 
as  the  voice  of  the  nation  to  defend  all  of  the  country  north  of  latitude  42°  and 
south  of  54°  40'  on  the  northwest  coast.  President  Tyler  evidently  did  not  believe 
that  the  forty-ninth  parallel  had  ever  been  established  by  any  commission,  or  if  so, 
he  did  not  believe  it  should  apply  to  the  boundary  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains. 

This  was  at  last  a  language  which  could  not  be  mistaken,  and  it  accelerated  the 
final  terms  of  the  conference  which  had  for  the  third  and  last  time  convened  in 


JAMES  K.  POLK. 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE:.  63 

negotiation  of  the  Oregon  question.  When  President  Polk  soon  afterward  suc 
ceeded  President  Tyler,  he,  while  reiterating  his  former  position  as  to  our  right, 
indicated  his  intention  to  stand  by  the  modified  offer  of  the  forty-ninth  parallel 
purely  as  a  compromise,  and  also  announced  the  opinion  that  our  nation  should 
terminate  the  joint  occupancy  and  give  England  the  necessary  one  year's  notice. 
Demonstrations  in  approval  of  this  determination  to  end  the  uncertainty  were  every 
where  heard.  War  now  seemed  inevitable  and  preparations  followed.  This  evi 
dence  of  popular  feeling,  following  the  very  decided  tone  of  Tyler  and  Polk,  was 
the  best  reminder  to  the  British  that  no  more  concessions  would  be  made  by  our 
government.  Finally  the  settlement  came  in  the  offer  of  Britain  to  accept  the 
forty-ninth  parallel  and  the  Straits  of  Fuca  for  the  northern  boundary  of  our 
nation,  and  this  being  accepted  the  treat}-  was  ratified  June  15,  1846.  Thus  ended 
one  of  the  most  memorable  and  long-continued  negotiations,  and  one  in  which 
some  of  the  most  eminent  statesmen  of  both  countries  participated.  Our  own 
nation  selected  such  men  as  Gallatin,  Webster,  Calhoun  and  Buchanan.  The 
arguments  submitted  by  our  negotiators  evinced  the  greatest  learning,  ingenuity 
and  patient  research. 

OREGON    ADMITTED    AS    A    TERRITORY. 

President  Polk,  who  was  at  all  times  the  earnest  friend  of  Oregon,  and  who 
was  elected,  as  before  stated,  on  a  platform  which  firmly  asserted  the  right  of  our 
nation  to  that  entire  region,  was  now  extremely  anxious  that  a  territorial  form  of 
government  should  be  extended  over  it  during  his  administration. 

In  his  annual  message  to  Congress  in  1846,  and  in  1847,  ne  strongly  recom 
mended  this  action.  On  May  29,  1848,  he  submitted  to  both  Houses  of  Congress 
a  special  message  again  urging  attention  and  reminding  the  nation's  lawmakers 
of  the  memorials  of  settlers  in  the  Columbia  river  valley,  of  their  exposed  con 
dition,  and  of  the  pressing  necessity  which  required  that  mounted  men  should 
immediately  be  called  into  service. 

Even  in  his  first  message  to  Congress  he  expressed  his  solicitude  for  these 
exposed  pioneers.  He  said: 

It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  while  under  this  act  British  subjects  have  enjoyed  the  protection 
of  British  laws  and  British  judicial  tribunals  throughout  the  whole  of  Oregon,  American  citizens  in 
the  same  territory  have  enjoyed  no  such  protection  from  their  government.  At  the  same  time  the 
result  illustrates  the  character  of  our  people  and  their  institutions.  In  spite  of  this  neglect  they  have 
multiplied,  and  their  number  is  rapidly  increasing  in  that  territory.  They  have  made  no  appeal  to 
arms,  but  have  peacefully  fortified  themselves  in  their  new  homes  by  the  adoption  of  republican  insti 
tutions  for  themselves,  furnishing  another  example  of  the  truth  that  self-government  is  inherent  in 
the  American  breast  and  must  prevail. 

Bills  were  introduced  in  Congress  providing  a  territorial  form  of  government, 
and  affording  such  other  relief  as  had  been  recommended.  Much  delay  ensued 
over  the  question,  so  common  at  that  time  in  the  admission  of  States  and  Terri 
tories,  as  to  whether  slavery  should  or  should  not  be  prohibited. 


64  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

The  objectionable  clause  in  the  Oregon  bill  to  many  was  that  which  recognized 
and  extended  to  the  new  territory  the  principle  of  the  ordinance  of  1787  excluding 
slavery,  which  ordinance  was  also  in  harmony  with  the  legislation  of  the  provi 
sional  government  of  Oregon  interdicting  slavery.  This  clause  in  the  bill  was  as 
follows: 

That  the  inhabitants  of  said  Territory  shall  be  entitled  to  enjoy  all  and  singular  the  rights,  privi 
leges,  and  advantages  granted  and  secured  to  the  people  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States  north 
west  of  the  river  Ohio  by  the  articles  of  compact  contained  in  the  ordinance  for  the  government  of 
said  Territory,  on  the  i3th  day  of  July,  1787,  and  shall  be  subject  to  all  the  conditions  and  restrictions 
and  prohibitions  in  said  articles  of  compact  imposed  upon  the  people  of  said  territory. 

The  objection  urged  against  this  principle  was  crystallized  in  the  strong  words 
of  John  C.  Calhoun,  in  his  speech  on  the  bill,  in  which  he  said: 

There  are  three  questions  involved:  First,  the  power  of  Congress  to  interfere  with  persons  emi 
grating  with  their  (slave)  property  into  the  State;  second,  the  power  of  the  territorial  government  to 
do  it;  and  third,  the  power  of  Congress  to  vest  such  a  power  in  the  Territory. 

This  was  the  issue,  and  around  it  waged  the  struggle.  Should  it  be  free,  or 
should  it  be  slave  territory? 

The  most  eminent  statesmen  of  our  nation  participated  in  the  debates  in  this 
memorable  contest.  Webster,  Cass,  Calhoun,  Douglas,  Benton,  Crittenden,  Hale, 
Houston,  McClernand,  Collamer,  Corwin  of  Ohio,  Butler  of  South  Carolina,  Bell 
of  Tennessee,  Davis  of  Mississippi,  and  Mason  of  Virginia — all  Senators — assumed 
a  leading  part.  Hannibal  Hainlin,  afterwards  Vice-President,  was  a  Senator  at  that 
time. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives,  among  those  then  and  since  eminent  before 
the  country  and  voting  on  the  passage  of  the  bill,  were  Abraham  Lincoln  and 
John  Wentworth  of  Illinois,  Andrew  Johnson  of  Tennessee,  Joshua  R.  Giddings 
of  Ohio,  David  Wilmot  of  Pennsylvania,  Robert  Toombs  and  Alexander  H. 
Stephens  of  Georgia.  Of  these  distinguished  men  two  were  afterwards  Presidents 
of  the  United  States.  It  may  also  be  mentioned,  as  of  some  interest,  that  Presi 
dent  Taylor  offered  to  Abraham  Lincoln  the  governorship  of  the  Territory  to 
succeed  Governor  Lane,  and  that  the  honor  was  declined. 

The  fight  was  a  hard  and  a  long  one,  but  the  end  came  gloriously,  and  Oregon 
with  its  vast  domain  was  constituted  a  Territory  of  the  United  States  on  the  i4th 
day  of  August,  1848,  with  all  the  privileges  and  benefits  which  follow  such  con 
ditions  in  the  political  relations  of  newly  admitted  territories.  The  vote  of  admis 
sion  was  also  conclusive  upon  the  question  of  slavery,  and  free  soil  was  proclaimed 
as  a  heritage  for  the  new  empire  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains. 

Of  all  the  eminent  statesmen  who  were  true  and  tried  in  the  long  contest  for 
supremacy  of  American  rights  upon  the  far-distant  Oregon,  none  should  be  longer 
or  more  gratefully  remembered  by  the  people  of  the  Pacific  northwest  than 
Thomas  H.  Benton. 


THOMAS  H.  BENTON. 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  65 

THOMAS    H.    BENTON. 

He  was  for  thirty  years  in  the  United  States  Senate  from  the  State  of  Mis 
souri,  and  was  one  of  the  strong  and  early  advocates  of  the  Oregon  country. 
His  influence  all  the  way  through,  and  in  the  last  trying  ordeal  preceding  the 
admission  of  Oregon  into  the  Union  as  a  Territory,  was  most  effective.  He  was 
the  earliest  friend  of  a  railroad  to  the  Pacific,  and  was  largely  instrumental  in 
securing  governmental  surveys  with  a  view  to  ascertaining  the  feasibility  of  rail 
way  construction  to  that  remote  land.  He  was  always  prominent  in  explora 
tions  in  the  far  West,  and  in  encouraging  overland  transit  to  the  Pacific.  His 
prediction  as  to  the  traffic  which  would  meet  at  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river — 
coming  and  going  between  the  Occident  and  the  Orient — has  been  verified  in  a 
surprising  degree.  As  far  back  as  1820  he  was  the  author  of  many  valuable 
contributions  to  the  public  press  on  the  resources  of  the  great  West.  He  was 
at  all  times  an  ardent  annexationist,  having  taken  an  active  part  in  reference  to 
the  annexation  of  Texas.  His  influence  with  President  Polk  had  much  to  do 
in  deciding  that  distinguished  President's  attitude  in  reference  to  the  acceptance 
of  the  boundary  line  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  on  the  parallel  of  the  forty- 
ninth  degree.  His  participation  in  all  the  discussions  attending  the  acquisition 
of  the  Mexican  territory  was  active,  and  his  aid  invaluable.  In  the  history  of 
western  development  his  name  will  live  long  as  one  of  its  most  able  and  successful 
advocates. 

OREGON    PROVISIONAL   GOVERNMENT. 

The  pioneers  of  the  }Vest.  — Gen.  Joseph  Lane,  of  Mexican  war  fame,  was 
appointed  by  President  Polk  governor  of  the  new  Territory,  and  on  the  3d  day  of 
March,  1849, ne  reached  Oregon  City,  and  there,  unfurling  the  Stars  and  Stripes  over 
that  westerly  confine  of  our  Republic,  he  assumed  the  duties  of  his  office  and  pro 
claimed  the  laws  of  the  United  States  to  be  in  force.  Governor  George  Abernethy, 
who  had  so  wisely  and  so  conscientiously  served  as  provisional  governor  for  the  four 
preceding  years,  cheerfully  relinquished  his  authority  to  the  chosen  representative  of 
our  great  nation.  During  those  four  years  of  anxiety  a  thoroughly  organized  gov 
ernment  had  been  successfully  maintained,  laws  were  enacted  by  an  orderly  elected 
legislative  assembly  and  construed  by  a  judicial  tribunal  carefully  selected  and 
composed  of  men  of  recognized  ability  and  integrity.  Taxes  were  imposed  and 
revenues  collected  without  difficult}',  while  the  strength  of  the  pioneer  government 
was  severely  tested  by  wars  with  the  hostile  Indians,  when  troops  were  raised, 
officers  commissioned,  discipline  maintained,  battles  fought  and  victories  won. 
Here  was  an  independent  State  and  a  voluntary  government  3,000  miles  remote 
from  the  capital  of  our  nation,  which  had  long  been  petitioned  and  implored  for 
its  protecting  aegis.  Our  history  has  afforded  no  loftier  illustration  of  the  capacity 
of  the  American  citizen  for  self-government,  because  no  other  people  on  this  con 
tinent,  for  so  long  a  period,  suffered  the  same  isolation,  endured  the  same  privations, 

2239 5 


66  THE   LOUISIANA    PURCHASE. 

or  so  patiently  and  uncomplainingly  faced  the  same  responsibilities  and  so  honor 
ably  and  successfully  fulfilled  them,  as  these  builders  of  American  empire  west  of 
the  Rocky  Mountains.  Their  provisional  government  is  as  splendid  a  monument 
to  their  administrative  ability  as  the  example  of  their  heroic  struggles  and  patriotic 
devotion  is  an  inspiration  and  a  blessing  to  all  who  shall  come  after  them.  The 
annals  of  pioneer  civilization  may  be  searched  in  vain  for  names  more  honored  or 
more  worthy  of  remembrance  by  a  grateful  people  than  those  of  McLoughlin, 
Whitman,  Abernethy,  Lane,  Thurston,  Nesmith,  Williams,  Applegate  and  Deady. 
Some  of  them  have  ornamented  the  highest  legislative  councils  of  our  nation, 
and  some  of  them  the  judiciary ;  some  achieved  fame  on  the  battlefield  or  as  self- 
denying  missionaries,  while  still  others  filled  the  measure  of  their  ambition  in  the 
provisional  and  territorial  governments.  Many,  too,  there  were  who  liberally 
extended  the  hand  of  charity  to  the  needy,  and  in  the  hour  of  danger  heroically 
marched  to  the  rescue  of  the  belated,  the  wayworn,  and  the  often  imperiled  emi 
grant  ;  but  of  them  all  the  generous  and  knightly  deeds  of  old  John  McLoughlin 
are  of  lasting  and  most  precious  memory. 

THE  EXTENT  OF  THE  OREGON  COUNTRY. 

The  Oregon  country  now  embraces  the  States  of  Oregon,  Idaho,  Washington 
and  parts  of  Montana  and  Wyoming,  containing  a  total  area  of  288,689  square  miles. 

Its  area  is  more  than  two  and  one-third  times  that  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland ; 
more  than  two  and  one-half  times  that  of  Italy;  more  than  one-third  larger  than 
either  France,  the  German  or  the  Austrian  Empire;  one-quarter  larger  than  Spain 
and  Portugal;  larger  than  the  German  Empire,  Switzerland,  Denmark,  Belgium 
and  the  Netherlands  combined;  larger  than  Japan,  the  Philippines  and  the 
Hawaiian  Islands;  four  times  larger  than  the  New  England  States;  more  than 
two  and  one-half  times  larger  than  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Dela 
ware  and  Maryland  combined;  more  than  two  and  one-fifth  times  larger  than 
Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois;  larger  than  the  total  area  of  Virginia,  North  and 
South  Carolina,  Kentucky  and  Tennessee;  and  larger  than  the  States  of  Texas, 
or  California  and  Nevada. 

The  population  is  now  in  excess  of  i  ,000,000. 

The  value  of  real  and  personal  property  in  1890  amounted  to  $423,887,065. 
Since  then  it  has  increased  a  large  per  cent,  while  the  agricultural,  mining  and 
lumber  interests  have  grown  to  vast  proportions. 

The  public  lands  disposed  of  prior  to  1897  equal  an  area  of  80, 118  square 
miles. 

Three  great  transcontinental  railways  now  cross  the  lofty  Rocky  Mountain 
range  and  unite  the  upper  Mississippi  and  the  Great  Lakes  with  the  waters  of  the 
Columbia,  while  still  another  railway  commencing  at  New  Orleans,  once  the  capital 
of  the  original  Louisiana  province,  and  reaching  over  the  State  of  Louisiana  around 
from  the  south  through  Texas,  New  Mexico,  Arizona  and  California,  crosses  the 
forty-second  parallel  of  north  latitude,  passing  through  Oregon,  until  it  finds 


THK    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE.  67 

a  terminus  at  the  city  of  Portland  on  the  tide  waters  of  the  Pacific  Ocean. 
Flourishing  cities,  towns,  and'  villages,  well-cultivated  farms,  vineyards  and 
orchards,  and  manufacturing,  mining  and  commercial  enterprises  are  found  at 
frequent  intervals,  often  in  continuous  lines,  along  those  vast  distances  of  travel ; 
and  yet  there  are  those  still  living  who  have  seen  that  great  expanse  of  country 
when  it  was  comparatively  unknown,  the  greater  portion  of  which  having  been 
noted  on  the  maps  of  our  schoolboy  days  as  "Desert"  or  "Unexplored."  By 
many  it  was  regarded  as  a  worthless  waste.  So  late  as  January,  1843,  when  our 
nation's  claim  to  the  Oregon  country  was  still  being  considered,  Mr.  McDuffie,  a 
distinguished  Senator,  in  a  speech  delivered  in  the  United  States  Senate,  said : 

What  is  the  nature  of  this  country?  Why,  as  I  understand  it,  700  miles  this  side  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains  is  uninhabitable;  a  region  where  rain  seldom  ever  falls;  a  barren,  sandy  soil;  mountains 
totally  impassable.  Well,  now,  what  are  we  going  to  do  in  this  case?  How  are  you  going  to  apply 
steam?  Have  you  made  anything  like  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  a  railroad  from  here  to  the  Columbia? 
Why,  the  wealth  of  the  Indies  would  be  insufficient.  Of  what  use  will  this  be  for  agricultural  pur 
poses?  Why,  I  would  not  for  that  purpose  give  a  pinch  of  snuff  for  the  whole  territory.  I  thank  God 
for  His  mercy  in  placing  the  Rocky  Mountains  there. 

A    SPLENDID    KMPIRE. 

Had  such  pessimistic  statesmen  prevailed  we  can  now  realize  what  would 
have  been  lost  to  our  country  in  a  failure  to  assert  our  rightful  claim  to  this  domain. 
I  have  adverted  to  the  marvelous  productions  in  agriculture,  and  other  resources 
of  the  entire  region  west  of  the  Rockies.  It  may  be  of  interest  to  single  out 
the  individual  States,  which  now  form  the  group  once  embracing  the  Oregon 
country,  and  credit  each  with  a  few  of  the  items  which -enter  into  its  industrial 
development.  The  Statistical  Abstract  of  the  United  States  for  1897  enables  us 
to  verify  some  most  interesting  facts: 

Oregon,  the  mother  of  the  group,  makes  a  magnificent  industrial  showing, 
and  a  few  productions  must  illustrate  for  all.  Her  gold  yield  in  1897  is  valued  at 
$1,354,500,  as  estimated  by  the  Director  of  the  Mint,  but  as  unofficially  reported 
here  is  $3,000,000.  The  foreign  and  domestic  exports  in  1897,  as  shown  by  the 
customs  reports,  equaled  about  $7,016,368,  while  the  free  and  dutiable  imports 
amounted  to  $1,640,099.  Her  wool  clip  for  the  same  year  equaled  18,440,850 
pounds;  the  sheep  numbered  2,682,779,  and  were  valued  at  $4,451,150,  ranking 
her  as  third  in  number  of  sheep  among  the  wool-growing  States  and  Territories. 
The  oxen  and  other  cattle  \vere  valued  at  $11,957,188,  horses  at  $3,989,854,  and 
milch  cows  at  $2,689,449.  The  salmon  fisheries  and  canneries  reported  a  gross 
output  for  the  same  year  valued  at  $1,231,591.  The  wheat  yield  in  1897  equaled 
18,155,000  bushels,  valued  at  $13,071,000,  while  the  hay  product  was  valued  at 
$8,431,550.  The  Oregon  timber,  like  that  of  Washington  and  California,  is 
noted  for  its  mammoth  size  and  superior  quality  as  well  as  for  its  quantity.  In 
four  counties  alone,  along  the  coast,  the  standing  timber  is  estimated  to  contain 
56,000,000,000  feet,  B.  M.  The  bank  clearings  for  Portland  will  best  illustrate 
the  commercial  importance  and  marvelous  growth  of  that  metropolis  of  less  than 
100,000  inhabitants,  and  also  indicate  the  progressive  spirit  which  animates  the 


68  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

business  communities  tributary  to  this  great  shipping  mart  of  the  Pacific  North 
west.  In  1897  these  clearings  amounted  to  $74,440,000,  while  the  wholesale  trade 
for  the  same  year  is  shown  to  have  equaled  in  value  $75,000,000.  (See  holiday 
edition  Oregonian,  January,  1898.)  The  lumber,  coal,  fruit,  hop  and  numerous 
other  products  could  be  added  to  swell  the  grand  total,  and,  when  to  this  we 
further  add  the  value  of  improved  farm  land,  the  value  of  the  mines,  forests  and 
manufacturing  plants,  and  the  wealth  of  the  towns  and  cities,  we  should  call 
forth  the  departed  shades  of  the  old  Senators  to  apologize  for  their  sneering 
estimates  of  this  wonderland  for  which  they  would  not  give  a  "pinch  of  snuff " 
in  1843. 

Washington,  the  second  State  of  the  group,  is  not  far  behind  the  first.  The 
domestic  and  foreign  exports  of  Puget  Sound,  in  Washington,  which  in  1883 
amounted  to  $1,770,219,  had  increased  in  1897  to  $11,864,925,  while  the  total  free 
and  dutiable  imports  .for  that  year  equaled  $7,066,131.  These  exports  exceed 
those  from  many  of  the  great  ports  on  the  Atlantic,  such  as  Charleston,  Wilming 
ton,  Mobile  and  Pensacola.  The  bank  clearings  of  the  two  leading  cities  will 
perhaps  afford  an  excellent  index  of  the  industrial  activity.  In  1897  the  clearings 
for  Seattle  represent  $36,050,000,  while  those  for  Tacoma  represent  $28,910,000. 
The  timber  cut  in  the  State  of  Washington,  in  1892,  for  manufacturing  pur 
poses  amounted  to  1,440,135,000  feet,  of  which  275,000,000  was  in  laths  and 
shingles.  There  was  sold  in  that  single  year  to  Australia,  Hawaii  and  South 
America  100,000,000  feet  of  lumber.  That  a  proper  conception  may  be  formed  of 
the  productive  forest  area  of  Washington,  it  may  be  stated,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Department  of  Agriculture,  that  the  standing  timber  (mainly  Douglas  spruce) 
equals  410,000,000,000  feet  and  covers  23,500,000  acres.  Dwelling  still  further 
upon  this  State,  it  may  be  said  to  rank  eleventh  among  the  wheat-growing  States 
of  the  Union,  having  produced  in  1897,  20,124,648  bushels,  valued  at  $13,684,761. 
In  the  same  year  Washington  had  oxen  and  beef  cattle  valued  at  $5,436,952, 
milch  cows  valued  at  $3,109,677,  horses  valued  at  $4,163,817,  and  sheep  valued 
at  $1,622,446.  The  gold  output  in  1897  amounted  to  $449,600,  and  the  silver 
production  to  $313,900. 

Idaho — the  Gem  of  the  Mountains — the  latest  of  the  northwest  group,  and 
which  was  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  State  so  late  as  July  3,  1890,  only  eight 
years  ago,  also  presents  a  most  creditable  showing.  Her  gold  yield  in  1897  was 
valued  at  $2,125,300,  and  her  silver  at  $7,103,300,  while  her  lead  output  was 
large,  valued  at  $3,500,000,  as  per  estimate  of  the  Director  of  the  Mint.  The 
value  of  her  oxen  and  other  cattle  iri  1897  was  $6,500,000,  and  the  sheep 
$3,612,313.  Her  wheat  yield  in  1897  amounted  to  2,707,672  bushels. 

OUR   MEXICAN    PURCHASE. 

A  still  further  illustration  of  timely  and  profitable  acquisition  of  territory  is 
that  represented  through  the  treaty  of  Guadaloupe  Hidalgo  with  Mexico,  Feb 
ruary  2,  1848,  following,  and  growing  out  of  the  Mexican  war. 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE.  69 

This  brought  to  us  523,802  square  miles,  or  335,233,280  acres,  to  which 
should  be  added  the  Gadsden  Purchase  five  years  later,  covering  36,211  square 
miles,  or  23,175,040  acres.  From  these  we  have  since  formed  five  great 
political  divisions,  viz,  the  States  of  California,  Nevada,  Utah,  the  Territo 
ries  of  New  Mexico  and  Arizona  in  part,  and  a  small  portion  of  what  is 
now  Colorado  and  Wyoming.  Merely  to  mention  CALIFORNIA  is  to  emphasize 
the  enormous  value  of  the  acquisition.  She  has  contributed  to  the  nation,  and 
to  the  world's  supply  of  gold,  since  1848,  an  excess  of  $1,309,490,917,  as  shown 
by  the  United  States  Mint  returns  for  successive  years.  In  a  single  year  (1853) 
her  gold  output  was  valued  at  $65,000,000.  Her  precious  mineral  product  was 
the  marvel  of  the  world,  and  exercised  a  material  influence  in  the  relation  of  the 
money  metals  among  the -nations.  With  such  an  exhaustive  and  continuous 
outpour  of  her  golden  metal  during  fifty  years  of  her  status  as  an  American 
community,  she  still  maintains  a  bounteous  offering,  and  though  no  longer  the 
largest  producer,  her  yield  last  year  amounted  to  $15,871,000.  The  gold  product 
of  the  United  States,  in  1897,  reached  a  total  of  $59,210,795,  more  than  one- 
fourth  the  entire  gold  production  of  the  \vorld,  and  placed  our  nation  ahead  of 
any  other  country  in  yield.  We  owe  this  proud  eminence  to  our  foresight  and 
\vise  policy  of  annexation ;  without  it  our  land  of  gold  would  have  continued  to 
remain  the  possessions  of  foreign  powers.  California  has  discovered  also  that 
her  \vealth  is  not  alone  in  her  minerals,  but  that  agriculture,  horticulture,  and 
animal  industry  are  within  her  capabilities,  and  her  splendid  showing  attests  this. 
Her  20,000,000  bushels  of  barley,  worth  $11,000,000,  ranks  her  as  first  in  barley 
production.  This  State  is  also  first  in  citrous  products.  Her  wheat  product,  in 
1897,  was  39,394,020  bushels,  valued  at  $26,887,000,  ranking  her  fifth  in  order 
among  the  wheat-growing  States.  Her  hay  product  is  valued  at  $24,444,000,  and 
fourth  in  order.  Her  wheat  value  is  now  almost  twice  that  of  her  gold  yield. 
Her  sheep  are  valued  at  $5,785,915  ;  cattle,  including  milch  cows,  at  $25,137,835, 
and  her  horses  and  mules  at  $14,246,765.  Her  wine  product  is  30,000,000  gal 
lons,  beet  sugar  65,000,000  pounds,  raisins  64,000,000  pounds,  prunes  82,000,000 
pounds,  and  oranges  10,250  carloads.  The  redwrood  along  the  coast  range  alone 
is  estimated  to  contain  25,000,000,000  feet,  B.  M.,  and  the  mills  manufacture 
enormous  quantities  of  lumber  and  employ  large  numbers  of  her  people. 

The  remainder  of  our  Mexican  purchase  also  makes  an  excellent  exhibit : 

Utah  mined  $1,805,988  of  gold  and  $11,413,463  in  silver  last  year.  Her 
cattle  and  milch  cows  were  valued  at  $7,056,000,  while  her  sheep  were  valued 
at  $4,144,863.  The  copper  output  in  1896  amounted  to  $376,500,  and  the  lead 
output  to  about  $2,000,000.  Her  wheat  yield  in  1897  was  3,190,740  bushels. 

Nevada  had  a  gold  yield  in  1897  of  $2,468,000,  and  a  silver  yield  of  $905,310. 
Her  sheep  were  valued  at  $1,206,467,  and  the  cattle  and  horses  at  $5,264,000. 

New  Mexico1 s  gold  and  silver  yield  did  not  exceed  $681,239,  but  she  makes 
her  record  at  present  in  cattle,  valued  at  $12,329,397,  and  her  sheep,  valued  at 
$5,364,284.  The  wheat  yield  in  1897  amounted  to  4,282,848  bushels. 


70  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

Arizona  possesses  a  value  in  cattle  of  $7,807,000,  and  in  sheep  of  $1,773,734  ; 
her  gold  yield  amounted  to  $2,700,000,  and  her  silver  product  to  nearly  as  much. 
The  output  of  copper  for  Arizona  in  1896  amounted  to  $7,840,505. 

For  all  this  splendid  empire  from  Mexico,  embracing  three  whole  States,  por 
tions  of  two  others,  and  almost  two  entire  Territories,  the  purchase  price  was 
$15,000,000! 

TOTAL  SILVER  OUTPUT. 

Here  it  may  be  proper  to  add  that  the  total  silver  production  of  the  United 
States  in  1896  was  valued  at  $76,069,000,  and  of  this  95  per  cent  was  mined  in  six 
divisions:  Colorado,  Montana,  Utah,  Idaho,  Nevada  and  Arizona.  This  only 
emphasizes  in  another  way  the  forcible  manner  in  which  we  are  reminded  of  the 
benefits  which  have  accrued  to  our  nation  through  the  policy  of  annexation  and 
territorial  expansion.  Americans  now  own  this  wealth,  and  an  American — not  a 
foreign — flag  floats  over  this  entire  domain  of  precious  metal  output. 

TOTAL  COST  OF  ANNEXATIONS. 

The  grand  total  of  the  sums  paid  for  our  foreign  acquisitions  amounts  to 
$52,200,000,  a  sum  less  than  the  value  of  one  year's  output  of  Montana's  minerals, 
of  Minnesota's  annual  wheat  yield,  or  of  the  cattle  and  hay  product  of  California 
for  one  year. 

IMPERFECT  STATISTICS. 

In  justice  to  the  different  States  and  Territories  whose  leading  resources  have 
been  briefly  mentioned,  it  should  be  said  that  the  statistics  quoted  are  in  every 
instance  believed  to  represent  less  than  the  actual  quantities  and  values.  The 
government's  statistician  makes  record  only  of  such  data  as  he  receives  from 
reliable  sources,  while  the  fact  still  remains  that  much  valuable  and  reliable  data 
never  reach  him.  This  is  largely  due  to  our  defective  system  of  procuring  authen 
tic  information  in  reference  to  our  nation's  annual  productive  capacity.  Unofficial 
and  yet  most  reliable  information  is  before  this  office  showing  very  material 
increases  over  the  reported  yields  of  some  of  the  States  as  collected  by  the  statis 
tical  bureau. 

OREGON  AND  THE  LOUISIANA  PURCHASE. 

Having  digressed  thus  far  to  show  the  profitableness  of  our  Oregon  and 
Mexican  acquisitions,  I  return  to  conclude  the  consideration  of  the  American 
claim  to  the  Oregon  country  so  far  as  to  prove  that  our  title  could  not  be  deduced 
through  the  Louisiana  Purchase. 

Mr.  Calhoun,  Secretary  of  State,  in  presenting  the  claims  of  the  United  States 
to  the  Oregon  country,  relied,  he  said,  upon  "our  own  proper  claims  and  those  we 
have  derived  from  France  and  Spain.  We  ground  the  former  as  against  Great 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  71 

Britain  on  priority  of  discovery  and  priority  of  exploration  and  settlement." 
Referring  to  our  claims  derived  from  France  under  the  Louisiana  Purchase,  he 
said: 

It  also  added  much  to  the  strength  of  our  title  to  the  region  beyond  the  Rocky  Mountains  by 
restoring  to  us  the  important  link  of  contiguity  westward  to  the  Pacific,  which  had  been  surrendered 
by  the  treaty  of  1763.  *  It  is  therefore  not  at  all  surprising  that  France  should  claim  the 

country  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  (as  may  be  inferred  from  her  maps)  on  the  same  principle  that 
Great  Britain  had  claimed  and  dispossessed  her  of  the  regions  west  of  the  Alleghany.  *  *  *  But 
since  then  we  have  strengthened  our  title  by  adding  to  our  proper  claims  and  those  of  France  the 
claims  also  of  Spain  by  the  treaty  of  Florida.  The  claims  which  we  have  acquired  from  her  between 
the  Rocky  Mountains  and  the  Pacific  rest  on  her  priority  of  discovery. 

These  extracts  from  Mr.  Calhoun's  argument  exhibit  in  brief  his  reasoning 
for  connecting  the  Louisiana  cession  with  the  country  west  of  the  Rocky  Moun 
tains.  It  will  be  observed  that  it  is  largely  confined  to  the  claim  of  contiguity. 
He  does  not  pretend  that  the  country  was  originally  included  in  the  cession, 
except  as  he  refers  to  France  having  claimed  that  country;  and  it  will  be  noticed 
that  he  only  infers  this  from  French  maps.  The  answer  to  this  inference  is  that 
but  very  few  French  maps,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  ever  showed  that  country  as 
belonging  to  France,  through  Louisiana.  The  first  French  maps  after  La  Salle's 
discovery  and  after  the  naming  of  Louisiana  by  him,  excluded  the  country  beyond 
the  mountains  from  Louisiana. 

The  fact  that  Mr.  Calhoun  was  compelled  to  resort  to  inference  to  establish 
a  claim  is  rather  presumptive  of  his  own  doubt,  and  when  we  notice  his  further 
admission  that  we  "strengthened  our  title"  by  adding  the  claims  of  Spain  west  of 
the  Rockies,  his  doubt  is  doubly  shown.  He  further  sanctions  the  claims  of  Spain 
when  he  refers  to  the  priority  of  Spanish  discoveries  in  the  Pacific,  as  he  quotes 
from  history,  and  cites  the  voyages  of  the  Spanish  navigator,  Maldonado,  in  1528, 
ending  with  those  under  Galiano  and  Voldes  in  1792,  all  being  under  the  authority 
of  Spain  and  all  fruitful  in  discovery  upon  the  Pacific  coast.  He  says — 

That  they  discovered  and  explored  not  only  the  entire  coast  of  what  is  now  the  Oregon  territory, 
but  still  farther  north,  are  facts  too  well  established  to  be  controverted  at  this  day. 

He  further  mentions  the  discovery  of  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  prior  to 
Captain  Gray's  discovery,  and  refers  to  it  as  the  "incontestable  claim  to  the  dis 
co  very  of  the  mouth  of  the  river  by  Heceta."  No  facts  are  presented  tending  to 
show  that  Louisiana  extended  so  far  west. 

In  his  second  argument,  or  reply,  he  again  declares  that  the  claim  of  the 
United  States  "rests  in  the  first  place  on  priority  of  discovery  sustained  by  their 
own  proper  claims  and  those  derived  from  Spain  through  the  treaty  of  Florida." 
He  makes  his  strong  point  against  the  British  claim,  and  in  favor  of  our  own, 
when  in  his  reply,  he  reminds  the  English  negotiator  of  the  latter's  fatal  admission 
in  his  argument,  conceding  that  Heceta,  August  15,  1775,  was  the  first  to  discover 
the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  River;  he  further  reminds  the  Englishman  "that 
Captain  Gray  was  the  first  to  pass  its  bar,  enter  its  mouth,  and  sail  up  its  stream." 


72  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

Mr.  Calhoun  in  this  reply,  while  outlining  somewhat  more  clearly  what  he  means 
by  "contiguity"  as  a  claim  through  the  Louisiana  cession,  by  coupling  that  claim 
with  our  purchase  of  Louisiana,  admits  that  France  never  claimed  Louisiana  as 
extending  beyond  the  Rockies,  when,  in  referring  to  the  French  claim,  he  said  the 
right  of  France  to  Louisiana  extended  "  to  the  region  drained  by  the  Mississippi 
and  its  waters,  on  the  ground  of  settlement  and  exploration."  It  is  difficult  to 
conceive  how,  on  such  a  basis,  France  could  deduce  a  claim,  through  contiguity,  to 
a  country  so  remote  and  separated  by  such  physical  obstacles  as  the  great  Rocky 
Mountain  range. 

THE   CLAIM    OF   CONTIGUITY. 

A  claim  west  of  the  Rockies,  through  our  purchase  of  Louisiana,  by  reason 
of  contiguity  is  especially  untenable,  because  the  western  limit  of  Louisiana 
was  sufficiently  definite,  it  being  known  that  the  highlands  at  the  head  of  the 
Mississippi  and  its  tributary  waters  constituted  the  boundary.  The  claim  of  con 
tiguity  most  often  arises  where  there  is  uncertainty  as  to  limit.  In  the  case  of 
the  discovery  and  exploration  of  a  river  it  extends  to  the  country  drained  by  that 
river.  This  being  determined  as  the  accepted  rule,  what  reasoning  can  justify  a 
claim  for  an  excess  of  territory  on  the  ground  of  contiguity?  Especially  is  it 
difficult  to  reconcile  such  claim  with  justice  where  such  excess  is  adversely  claimed, 
as  in  the  case  of  Spain  to  the  country  west  of  the  Rockies,  based  on  quite  good 
showing  of  long  prior  discovery  and  partial  settlement.  If  contiguity  is  to  be 
applied,  then,  on  this  basis  Spain  would  be  preferred,  since  her  acknowledged  pos 
session  and  dominion  of  the  California  country  brought  the  Oregon  country  to  the 
north  at  least  far  more  contiguous  to  her  possessions  than  it  was  to  the  country 
occupied  in  the  Louisiana  cession.  The  nations  of  the  earth  very  promptly  repudi 
ated  Spain's  claim  to  the  whole  of  the  western  continent,  based  on  her  early  dis 
coveries  of  a  small  portion.  England,  France  and  Portugal  were  likewise  denied 
recognition  of  claims  to  vast  regions  on  the  same  ground.  The  British  did  not 
claim  extension  of  territory  from  Hudson  Bay  on  the  ground  of  contiguity ;  they 
justified  their  extension  by  right  of  exploration  and  discovery;  this  claim,  though 
denied  by  our  nation,  had  much  to  do  in  the  final  adjustment  of  the  British 
boundary,  not  only  in  the  recognition  by  Russia  of  Britain's  claim  south  of  54°  40', 
but  by  our  own  negotiators  and  countrymen  in  at  last  agreeing  that  the  line 
between  the  British  and  American  possessions  should  be  along  the  forty-ninth 
parallel.  Mr.  Calhoun  admits  that  the  claim  of  Spain  to  the  entire  continent,  on  the 
ground  of  contiguity,  by  reason  of  discovery  by  Columbus,  was  not  acquiesced  in 
by  other  nations.  He  also  admits  that  it  is  an  abstract  question  how  far  a  claim 
by  contiguity  can  extend  beyond  the  precise  spot  discovered  or  occupied,  and  that 
"  it  is  subject  in  each  case  to  be  influenced  by  a  variety  of  considerations."  Accept 
ing  this  qualification,  it  may  be  submitted,  then,  that  in  the  case  of  the  western 
boundary  of  the  Louisiana  cession,  a  very  strong  and  conclusive  consideration,  pre 
cluding  any  further  contention,  is  the  admitted  fact  that  so  well  known  a  physical 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE.  73 

obstruction  as  the  great  Rock}-  Mountain  range  stood  as  a  barrier  to  the  west,  and 
forms  the  highlands  from  which  are  drained  the  waters  flowing  into  the  Mississippi, 
the  discovery  of  which  constitutes  the  French  claim  to  the  country  east  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains.  Can  it  not  be  said  when  a  claim  is  based  on  discovery  of  the 
mouth  of  a  river,  that  the  further  claim  of  contiguity  from  the  precise  spot  dis 
covered  is  limited  to  and  fully  met  by  including  all  the  country  drained  by  that 
river  and  its  tributaries?  That  Mr.  Calhoun  did  not  attach  much  importance  to 
his  contiguity  argument  in  his  able  presentation  of  our  nation's  claim,  is  evident 
from  his  reply  to  the  British  plenipotentiary,  when  he  said :  "The  cession  of  Loui 
siana  gave  us  undisputed  title  west  of  the  Mississippi,  extending  to  the  summit 
of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  south,  between  that  river  and  those  mountains,  to  the 
possessions  of  Spain.1'  Mr.  Buchanan,  as  Secretary  of  State,  following  Mr.  Cal 
houn,  at  the  point  left  off  by  him,  relied  but  little  on  the  contiguity  claim,  as  he 
announced  that — 

The  title  of  the  United  States  to  that  portion  of  the  Oregon  territory  between  the  valley  of  the 
Columbia  and  the  Russian  line  in  50°  40'  north  latitude  is  recorded  in  the  Florida  treaty.  Under  this 
treaty,  dated  on  the  22d  of  February,  1819,  Spain  ceded  to  the  United  States  all  her  rights,  claims,  and 
pretensions  to  any  territories  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  north  of  the  forty -second  parallel  of 
latitude.  We  contend  that  at  the  date  of  this  cession  Spain  had  a  good  title,  as  against  Great  Britain, 
to  the  whole  Oregon  territory. 

The  view  I  here  submit  as  to  the  doctrine  of  contiguity  is  approved  in  Lawrence's 
Principles  of  International  Law,  page  152,  which  holds  that— 

In  the  absence  of  natural  features,  the  boundary  of  the  contiguous  settlements  of  two  States 
should  be  drawn  midway  between  the  last  posts  on  either  side.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt 

that  natural  boundaries  would  be  preferred  to  an  imaginary  line,  in  cases  where  they  exist. 

The  same  authority  admits  that  the  rights  of  sovereignty  gained  by  occupa 
tion  may  extend  beyond  the  actual  place  inhabited,  but,  it  adds,  "the  reasonable 
doctrine  of  expansion  must  not  be  pushed  to  absurd  lengths."  Modern  interna 
tional  law  does  not  sanction  Mr.  Calhoun's  contiguity  claim  as  he  endeavored  to 
extend  it,  nor  have  I  found  any  authority  that  ever  did. 

Pomeroy's  International  Law,  page  105,  declares  that — 

It  is  evident  that  those  natural  boundaries  which  physical  geography  points  out — the  ranges  of 
mountains,  the  great  rivers  draining  large  basins,  the  gulfs  and  bays,  the  prominent  capes,  and  the 
trend  of  the  coast  line — must  have  great  influence  in  determining  the  limits  of  national  domain. 

A  claim  of  contiguity  is  sufficiently  met  by  conceding  to  the  nation  under 
whose  flag  the  mouth  of  a  river  is  discovered  all  the  country  drained  by  that  river; 
otherwise  a  nation  would  be  restricted  to  the  precise  spot  on  which  its  people  first 
landed  or  settled.  To  claim  beyond  the  drainage  of  the  river,  on  the  theory  of 
contiguity,  would  be  as  unjust  and  unreasonable  as  to  limit  possession  by  actual 
occupancy.  These  are  two  extremes. 

The  contiguity  claim  of  Calhoun  in  reference  to  the  Louisiana  Purchase  was 
not  approved  by  Monroe  and  Pinckney,  the  American  negotiators  at  Madrid 


74  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

in  1803-1805,   where   the  question  of  territorial  extent  following  discovery  was 
discussed.     They  contended  that — 

When  any  European  nation  claims  possession  of  any  extent  of  seacoast,  that  possession  is  under 
stood  as  extending  into  the  interior  country  to  the  sources  of  the  rivers  emptying  within  that  coast, 
to  all  their  branches,  and  the  country  they  cover. 

These  views  constitute  the  recognized  international  doctrine  of  contiguity, 
and,  as  so  held,  Mr.  Calhoun's  attempt  to  claim  Oregon  through  the  Louisiana 
Purchase  by  virtue  of  contiguity  can  not  be  sustained. 

It  has  been  asserted  by  some  that  the  British  claim  to  the  Pacific  Northwest 
was  defended  on  the  ground  of  contiguity,  based  upon  the  English  right  to  the 
Hudson  Bay  country.  Such,  however,  is  not  the  fact. 

SIR   ALEXANDER    MACKENZIE'S   EXPEDITION. 

The  first  exploration  of  the  continent,  and  the  first  success  in  discovering  a 
route  by  land  from  ocean  to  ocean,  was  that  by  Alexander  McKenzie  and  party, 
and  many  of  the  names  they  gave  to  rivers  and  mountains  along  their  memorable 
journey  remain  to-day  to  remind  us  of  the  intrepid  men  who  achieved  this  great 
triumph.  Two  years  after  his  voyage  down  the  McKenzie  river  to  its  entrance 
into  the  Arctic  Ocean,  and  on  his  return  to  Fort  Chepewyan  on  Ithabasca  Lake, 
McKeiizie,  on  the  loth  day  of  October,  1792,  started  in  a  birch-bark  canoe  with  a 
few  fellow-voyagers  on  his  search  of  a  route  to  another  remote  point  on  the  great 
Pacific  Ocean.  He  followed  up  the  Peace  river  as  far  as  possible  to  a  point  in 
longitude  121°,  and  then  crossing  the  summit  of  the  mountains  came  upon  the 
waters  flowing  toward  the  Pacific;  which  he  thought  to  be  the  Columbia  river, 
as  Fraser  also  thought  when  he  saw  it  thirteen  years  later,  and  to  which  he  sub 
sequently  gave  his  name  as  it  is  now  known,  Fraser  river,  but  which  was  then 
known  by  the  natives  as  the  Tacootche.  Over  rapids  and  through  narrowr  and 
tortuous  channels,  the  descending  waters  broadened  and  spread  until  they  formed 
a  large-sized  river  which  McKenzie  followed  to  a  point  near  the  junction  of  the 
Black  water,  or,  as  he  names  it  on  his  map,  the  West  Road  River;  and  there  he 
turned  his  course  more  directly  to  the  west,  and  on  the  morning  of  the  2Oth  of 
July,  1793,  the  great  object  of  his  journey  being  accomplished,  he  floated  on  the 
tide  waters  of  the  Pacific  Ocean.  Proceeding  southwesterly  he  reached  Point 
Menzes  on  the  coast,  shown  by  Vancouver  on  his  map,  and  then  exploring  the 
Burke  and  Dean  canals  he  journeyed  up  the  Cascade  canal ;  all  of  which  the 
British  navigator  had  surveyed  but  two  months  before  McKenzie  reached  his  last 
point,  and  there,  standing  above  the  waves  of  the  Pacific,  he  painted  on  a  rocky 
cliff  overhanging  the  seashore,  in  memory  of  his  great  exploit,  these  words: 
"Alexander  Mackenzie,  from  Canada  by  land  the  twenty-second  of  July,  one 
thousand  seven  hundred  and  ninety-three." 

This  early  claim  the  British  united  with  their  other  claims  by  virtue  of  coast 
discoveries,  and  their  much  stronger  claim  through  the  Nootka  Sound  Convention 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  75 

of  1790,  wherein  they  claimed  that  Spain  had  acknowledged  their  right  to  joint 
occupancy  and  settlement ;  and  they  relied  on  these  rather  than  through  con 
tiguity  to  Hudson  Bay. 

This  Nootka  claim  was  resisted  by  our  negotiators,  who  insisted  that  this 
right  was  merely  transient  and  did  not  interfere  with  Spain's  exclusive  sovereignty, 
and  that,  whatever  that  right  was,  it  was  annulled  by  the  war  between  Spain  and 
Britain  in  1/96.  Yet,  with  all  this,  the  claim  was  of  great  weight  with  the  nego 
tiators  in  conceding  to  Britain  the  territory  lying  north  of  the  forty-ninth  parallel. 

NO   PROOF   THAT   OREGON   WAS    INCLUDED   IN   THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE. 

It  is  noticeable  in  all  the  authorities  asserting  the  Louisiana  Purchase  to 
extend  beyond  the  Rocky  Mountains  to  the  Pacific  that  no  substantial  support  is 
found  for  such  assumption  of  fact.  In  the  American  additions  to  Chambers 
Encyclopedia  the  assertion  is  made  that  Idaho,  Oregon  and  Washington  were 
embraced  within  the  Louisiana  territory.  No  authority  or  reason  is  given  for 
such  statement. 

In  Guthrie's  Universal  Geography,  Volume  I,  the  statement  is  made  that  the 
limits  of  Louisiana  extended  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  No  proof  accompanies  this 
assertion. 

Russell's  History  of  the  United  States  claims  that  the  cession  included  "not 
only  Louisiana  but  the  whole  country  from  the  Mississippi  to  the  Pacific. "  It  is 
satisfied  with  this  mere  assertion. 

Olney's  History  of  the  United  States  contains  two  sentences  in  reference  to 
the  same  claim,  ending  with  the  bare  assertion:  "as  it  included  all  that  part  of  the 
country  west  of  the  Mississippi,  extending  to  Mexico  and  the  Pacific  Ocean." 
Other  histories  are  equally  deficient  in  proof  where  the  same  statement  is  made. 

OFFICIAL   DECLARATION   INCREASED   POPULAR   ERROR. 

Perhaps  no  publication  in  late  years  contributed  so  much  in  confirming  such 
erroneous  statements  as  did  the  official  declaration  made  in  the  census  reports  of 
1870. 

The  report  of  that  census  contains  a  map  which  represents  the  present  area 
of  Oregon,  Washington  and  Idaho  as  having  been  included  in  and  acquired 
through  the  Louisiana  Purchase  of  1803.  Coming  with  this  official  sanction  of 
the  government,  it  has  been  adopted  by  the  public  as  a  declaration  to  be  relied  on. 
Following  that  report  was  the  publication  of  the  Public  Domain,  prepared  pursu 
ant  to  acts  of  Congress  approved  March  3,  1879,  and  June  16,  1880.  This  contained 
a  map  on  the  plan  of  the  census  map,  and  was  an  acquiescence  in  the  error  of  the 
census  report  as  to  this  Subject.  Since  then  various  historians  have  accepted  the 
statement  as  an  historic  truth  and  it  has  been  taught  in  the  schools  of  the  country. 
The  present  map,  as  published  by  the  Interior  Department,  and  which  is  to  be 


76  THE   LOUISIANA    PURCHASE. 

corrected  in  this  respect  in  a  new  publication,  is  copied  from  and  justified  by  the 
map  which  is  made  a  part  of  the  Ninth  Census  and  by  the  "Public  Domain." 
This  office  merely  followed  that  authority.  Gen.  F.  A.  Walker,  the  superintendent 
of  that  census,  when  called  upon  to  justify  his  official  representation,  replied  that, 
as  he  recalled  the  negotiations,  our  government  made  claim  to  Oregon  by  virtue  of 
the  Louisiana  Purchase.  Subsequently,  when  again  asked  by  a  leading  educator 
his  reasons  for  representing  the  extension  beyond  the  Rocky  Mountains,  he 
answered:  "I  am  free  to  confess  that  my  individual  views  do  not  coincide  there 
with."  Prof.  John  J.  Anderson,  Ph.D.,  a  well-known  author  of  many  historical 
publications,  and  of  a  widely  used  school  history  of  the  United  States,  in  an  able 
contribution,  entitled,  "Did  the  Louisiana  Purchase  extend  to  the  Pacific  Ocean?" 
sums  up  his  conclusions  by  saying: 

Nowhere  have  we  seen  any  attempt  whatever  to  prove  that  any  part  of  the  region  west  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains  ever  belonged  to  France,  or  that  France  ever  made  any  pretense  of  conveying  it  to 
the  United  States.  It  was  no  part  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase. 

McMaster's  History  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,"  [Volume  2,  page 
633]  expresses  substantially  the  same  view  in  the  following  language : 

Never  at  any  time  did  Oregon  form  part  of  Louisiana.  Marbois  denied  it.  Jefferson  denied  it. 
There  is  not  a  fragment  of  evidence  in  its  behalf.  Our  claim  to  Oregon  was  derived,  and  derived 
solely  from  the  Florida  Treaty  of  1819,  the  settlement  at  Astoria,  the  explorations  of  Lewis  and  Clark, 
and  the  discovery  of  the  Columbia  river  by  Robert  Gray. 

Commenting  upon  the  same  error  in  the  present  General  Land  Office  map  of 
the  United  States,  Col.  James  O.  Broadhead,  of  St.  Louis,  a  distinguished  Ameri 
can  statesman  and  scholar,  in  a  recent  lecture  delivered  before  the  Missouri  His 
torical  Society,  entitled,  "The  Louisiana  Purchase  :  Extent  of  Territory  Acquired 
by  the  Purchase,"  very  critically  reviews  the  leading  authorities  upon  this  subject, 
and  expresses  his  own  judgment  by  saying  that  all  these  sources  of  information 
"establish  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  the  fact  that  by  the  treaty  of  1803  the  terri 
tory  ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States  embraced  only  the  territory  watered  by 
the  Mississippi  and  Missouri  rivers  and  their  tributaries. ' ' 

JEFFERSON,  MARBOIS,  AND    GREENHOW. 

If  there  were  no  other  proofs  as  to  the  Louisiana  cession  not  extending  west 
ward  of  the  Rocky  Moiintains  the  declarations  of  three  men  alone  should  be  con 
clusive;  they  are  those  of  Jefferson,  the  President  of  our  Republic,  who  did  so 
much  to  accomplish  the  cession  ;  Marbois,  minister  of  France,  who  earnestly 
seconded  Napoleon's  desire  to  cede ;  and  Greenhow,  the  historian,  who  perhaps 
gave  to  the  subject  more  exhaustive  study  than  any  other  man.  Greenhow  was 
librarian  of  the  State  Department  of  the  United  States,  and  prepared  a  most  com 
prehensive  report  to  Congress  on  the  subject,  and  at  a  time  when  every  contribu 
tion  relating  to  the  discussion  was  closely  read.  He  also  published  a  history  of 
California  and  Oregon,  in  which  he  reviews  this  subject  of  the  Louisiana  cession. 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  77 

President  Jefferson's  instructions  through  Mr.  Madison,  his  Secretary  of  State, 
to  Monroe  and  Pinckney,  July  30,  1807,  expressed  and  explained  the  terms  on  which 
they  were  directed  to  close  the  treaty,  and  contains  this  language  as  to  boundaries  : 

This  is  in  no  view  whatever  necessary,  and  can  have  little  other  effect  than  as  an  offensive  inti 
mation  to  Spain  that  our  claims  extend  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  However  reasonable  such  claims  may  be 
compared  with  others,  it  is  impolitic,  especially  at  the  present  moment,  to  strengthen  Spanish  jeal 
ousies  of  the  United  States,  which  it  is  probably  an  object  wTith  Great  Britain  to  excite  by  the  clause  in 
question. 

Another  statement  from  Mr.  Jefferson — and  four  years  earlier-  -is  in  his  letter 
to  Mr.  Breckenridge,  which  I  subjoin  in  full,  so  far  as  it  refers  to  the  Louisiana 
boundaries : 

MONTICELLO,  August  /<?,  fSoj. 
To  Mr.  BRECKENRIDGE. 

DEAR  SIR,— The  enclosed  letter,  though  directed  to  you,  was  intended  to  me  also,  and  was  left 
open  with  a  request,  that  when  forwarded,  I  would  forward  it  to  you.  It  gives  me  occasion  to  write 
a  word  to  you  on  the  subject  of  Louisiana,  which  being  a  new  one,  an  interchange  of  sentiments  may 
produce  correct  ideas  before  we  are  to  act  on  them. 

Our  information  as  to  the  country  is  very  incomplete;  we  have  taken  measures  to  obtain  it  full 
as  to  the  settled  part,  which  I  hope  to  receive  in  time  for  Congress.  The  boundaries,  which  I  deem 
not  admitting  question,  are  the  highlands  on  the  western  side  of  the  Mississippi  enclosing  all  its 
waters,  the  Missouri,  of  course,  and  terminating  in  the  line  drawn  from  the  northwestern  point  of 
the  Lake  of  the  Woods  to  the  nearest  source  of  the  Mississippi,  as  lately  settled  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States.  We  have  some  claims  to  extend  on  the  seacoast  westwardly  to  the 
Rio  Xorte  or  Bravo,  and  better,  to  go  eastwardly  to  the  Rio  Perdido,  between  Mobile  and  Pensacola, 
the  ancient  boundary  of  Louisiana.  These  claims  will  be  a  subject  of  negotiation  with  Spain,  and 
if,  as  soon  as  she  is  at  war,  we  push  them  strongly  with  one  hand,  holding  out  a  price  in  the 
other,  we  shall  certainly  obtain  the  Floridas,  and  all  in  good  time.  *  *  * 

This  treaty  must  of  course  be  laid  before  both  Houses. 

Another  letter  to  General  Gates,  about  the  same  time,  is  also  in  point: 

WASHINGTON,  July  //,  1803. 
To  General  GATES. 

DEAR  GENERAL,— I  accept  with  pleasure,  and  with  pleasure  reciprocate  your  congratulations  on 
the  acquisition  of  Louisiana;  for  it  is  a  subject  of  mutual  congratulation,  as  it  interests  every  man  of 
the  nation.  The  territory  acquired,  as  it  includes  all  the  waters  of  the  Missouri  and  Mississippi, 
has  more  than  doubled  the  area  of  the  United  States,  and  the  new  parts  is  not  inferior  to  the  old  in 
soil,  climate,  productions  and  important  communications.  *  *  * 

Marbois,  in  his  History  of  Louisiana,  referring  to  the  extent  of  the  Louisiana 
cession,  says: 

The  shores  of  the  western  ocean  were  certainly  not  included  in  the  cession,  but  the  United  States 
are  already  established  there.  (See  p.  286.) 

Marbois  again  says: 

• 

The  charter  given  by  Louis  XIV  to  Crozat  included  all  the  countries  watered  by  the  rivers  which 
empty  directly  or  indirectly  into  the  Mississippi.  Within  this  description  comes  the  Missouri,  a  river 
that  has  its  sources  and  many  of  its  tributary  streams  at  a  little  distance  from  the  Rocky  Mountains. 
The  first  article  of  the  treaty  of  cession  to  the  United  States  meant  to  convey  nothing  beyond  them, 
but  the  settlement  in  the  interior,  which  has  resulted  from  it,  and  the  one  on  the  Pacific  Ocean  at  the 
west  have  mutually  strengthened  each  other.  (See  p.  291.  ) 


78  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

Greenhow,  in  his  History  of  California  and  Oregon,  commenting  on  the 
boundaries  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase,  says: 

In  the  absence  of  more  direct  light  on  the  subject  from  history  we  are  forced  to  regard  the 
boundaries  indicated  by  nature — namely,  the  highlands  separating  the  waters  of  the  Mississippi  from 
those  flowing  into  the  Pacific  or  the  California  Gulf — as  the  true  western  boundaries  of  the  Louisiana 
ceded  by  France  to  Spain  in  1762,  retroceded  to  France  in  1800,  and  transferred  to  the  United  States 
by  France  in  1803. 

France,  at  the  time  of  the  cession,  did  not  claim  any  territory  west  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains,  but  did  concede  the  dominion  of  Spain  to  that  country,  as 
Spain  then,  and  before,  claimed  the  same.  In  support  of  this  assertion  we  have 
the  official  declaration  of  Talleyrand,  the  French  minister,  to  the  Spanish  Govern 
ment  (August  31,  1804,  Talleyrand  to  Gravine),  as  follows: 

In  any  case  the  Court  of  Madrid  would  have  no  ground  for  the  fear  it  shows  that  the  United 
States  may  make  use  of  their  possession  of  Louisiana  in  order  to  form  possessions  on  the  northwest 
coast  of  America.  Whatever  boundar)-  may  be  agreed  upon  between  Spain  and  the  United  States,  the 
line  will  necessarily  be  so  far  removed  from  the  western  coast  of  America  as  to  relieve  the  Court  of 
Madrid  from  anxiety  on  that  score. 

These  evidences  from  the  highest  and  most  authentic  sources,  and  these 
expressions  from  men  who  lived  in  the  times  when  this  great  question  was  most 
closely  and  critically  examined,  constitute  the  best  authority,  and  should  be  finally 
and  forever  conclusive  upon  the  controversy  as  to  the  extent  of  the  Louisiana 
Purchase. 

Having  reached  this  conclusion  as  to  the  western  boundary  of  the  cession 
from  France  history  equally  justifies  us  in  our  claim  to  the  Oregon  country  to  the 
westward  of  the  cession,  now  embracing  the  States  of  Oregon,  Washington  and 
Idaho,  and  portions  of  Montana  and  Wyoming  as  resting  on  and  derived  through — 

First.  Discovery  and  entrance  of  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  River  by  Capt. 
Robert  Gray  in  1792. 

Second.   Exploration  by  Lewis  and  Clarke  in  1805. 

Third.  Settlement  and  occupation  by  the  Astoria  party  in  1811. 

Fourth.   Relinquishment  of  the  rights  of  Spain  by  the  treaty  of  1819. 

Therefore  the  Cession  Map  of  the  United  States  should  be  made  to  conform 
to  facts  well  established  and  long  confirmed  by  history,  with  which,  I  respectfully 
submit,  the  position  assumed  in  this  review  of  the  question  is  in  complete  accord. 


A  REVIEW  OF  ANNEXATION  BY  THE  UXITKI)  STATES. 

EARLY   OBJECTIONS   TO    ANNEXATION    ANALYZED. 

Annexation  and  affiliation  within  the  confines  of  the  great  American  Republic 
have  become  the  popular  thought  of  the  people  inhabiting  the  countries  adjoining 
or  near  our  shores.  There  is  a  magnetism  about  the  old  flag  which  attracts  these 
people  to  us.  It  means  to  them  freedom  and  humanity.  It  means  greater  oppor 
tunities.  This  was  the  feeling  in  Florida,  in  Texas,  in  California  and  in  Oregon. 
Eighteen  great  States  and  four  prosperous  Territories  and  Districts,  with  Hawaii, 
comprise  the  domain  acquired  by  annexation  from  foreign  powers — vastly  exceed 
ing  in  area  that  wrested  from  our  British  ancestors  by  the  Revolutionary  war — 
and  all  within  the  lifetime  of  many  still  living. 

There  are  in  the  present  American  Congress  24  Senators  and  65  Representa 
tives  from  States  within  the  limits  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase  ;  from  this,  and  our 
ether  foreign  acquisitions,  there  are  to-day  in  that  Congress  40  Senators  and  97 
Representatives  and  Delegates.  Though  innumerable  advantages  have  accrued 
to  our  nation  by  territorial  expansion,  and  though  we  have  become  greater  and 
stronger  with  each  increase  of  our  area  and  acquired  population,  yet  every  effort 
to  expand  our  domain  has  been  antagonized  by  many  of  our  own  people.  Some 
very  specious  arguments,  as  hereinbefore  shown,  have  been  advanced  in  opposition, 
but  the  experience  of  our  nation  diiring  many  years  enable  us  now  to  refute  the 
different  positions  assumed. 

Remoteness. — The  objection  to  cession  of  foreign  territory  especially  because  of 
remoteness  has  been  urged  in  the  past  to  all  our  accessions.  That  this  has  neither 
resulted  to  the  injury  of  our  union  nor  to  our  institutions  we  have  evidences  all 
around  us.  We  observe  that  Hawaii  is  more  accessible  to  the  United  States  to 
day  than  were  the  settled  portions  of  Louisiana  in  Jefferson's  time,  or  of  Florida 
in  that  of  Monroe,  and  indeed  nearer,  as  well  as  more  accessible,  than  was  Oregon 
during  Folk's  administration.  To  the  answer  that  these  acquisitions  were  neither 
interrupted  by  foreign  dominion,  nor  by  oceans,  \ve  turn  to  Alaska.  We  find  that 
District  not  only  incontiguous,  but  separated  by  a  foreign  country.  It  is  also  a 
fact  that  all  communication  with  that  distant  people  and  with  our  civil  gov 
ernment  there  is  by  ocean;  the  distance  from  Seattle  to  Sitka  by  steamer  or  sailing 
vessel  being  900  miles,  and  from  Seattle  to  St.  Michaels,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Yukon, 
it  is  2,705  miles.  Hawaii  is  nearer  the  American  mainland  than  are  some  of  our 
Aleutian  Islands.  California  when  admitted  into  the  Union  was  far  more  inacces- 

79 


80  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

sible  than  is  Hawaii  to-day.  Gen.  Joseph  Lane,  the  first  Territorial  governor  of 
Oregon,  desired  to  reach  that  destination  as  early  as  possible,  so  as  to  proclaim 
the  Federal  authority  over  that  Territory  before  the  expiration  of  President 
Folk's  term,  on  March  4,  1849.  He  departed  with  his  commission  from  Indiana 
on  August  27,  1848,  and  journeyed  via  Fort  Leavenworth,  Santa  Fe,  El  Paso, 
and  thence  to  California,  where  at  San  Pedro  Bay  he  took  passage  on  a  sailing 
vessel  and  was  conveyed  to  San  Francisco.  Here,  finding  a  ship  bound  for  the 
Columbia  river,  he  was  transported  to  Oregon,  where  he  arrived  on  the  ist  of 
March  following — the  journey  occupying  about  six  months! 

President  Polk,  in  a  message  to  Congress,  thought  it  might  be  practicable  to 
establish  an  overland  mail  once  a  month,  and  so  advised. 

Now,  this  distance  is  traversed  in  five  days  with  comfort  and  safety,  and  for 
reasonable  compensation.  By  our  modern  contrivances  time,  distance  and  danger 
are  largely  overcome  in  transportation  from  point  to  point.  The  wagon  and  the 
stage-coach  are  distanced  and  surpassed  by  the  steam  car ;  the  sail  has  for  quick 
dispatch  given  \vay  to  steam  ;  the  wooden  vessel  has  been  supplanted  by  the  iron 
ship ;  and  expedition  in  communication  and  correspondence  between  individuals 
is  accomolished  through  the  fast  mail,  the  telegraph,  and  the  telephone. 

THE    CONSTITUTIONALITY    OF   ANNEXATION. 

The  doubt  entertained  as  to  the  right  under  the  Constitution  to  acquire 
possession  of  foreign  territory  has  been  answered  by  the  several  acquisitions  made 
since  that  of  Louisiana,  as  well  as  by  the  judgments  of  the  highest  courts  and  in 
the  opinions  and  writings  of  our  most  illustrious  jurists.  Chief  Justice  Marshall, 
rendering  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  case  of  The 
American  Insurance  Company  v.  Canter,  said : 

The  Constitution  confers  absolutely  on  the  Government  of  the  Union  the  power  of  making  wars 
and  making  treaties,  consequently  the  Government  possesses  the  power  of  acquiring  territory  either 
by  conquest  or  treaty. 

The  Supreme  Court  again,  in  another  celebrated  case,  The  Mormon  Church  v. 
The  United  States  (136  U.  S.  R.),  said: 

The  power  of  acquiring  territory  is  derived  from  the  treaty-making  power  and  the  power  to  declare 
and  carry  on  war.  *     *     The  antecedents  of   these  powers  are  those  of  national  sovereignty,  and 

belong  to  all  independent  governments. 

The  further  provision  of  the  Constitution  conferring  on  Congress  the  power 
to  provide  for  the  common  defense  and  to  promote  the  general  welfare  implies 
also  the  authority,  when  necessary,  to  acquire  territory.  It  is  a  power  inherent  in 
the  fundamental  nature  of  government,  and  involves  a  principle  of  maintenance, 
of  defense,  of  perpetuity. 

There  have  been  many  Executive  interpretations  of  the  Constitution  in 
consonance  with  these  views  in  treaties  through  which  we  acquired  the  larger 


THE    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE.  8 1 

part  of  our  domain,  and  in  several  other  treaties  negotiated  for  foreign  territory, 
which  were  never  consummated  by  ratification,  such  as  Hawaii  in  1854,  Santo 
Domingo  in  1870,  Hawaii  again  in  1893,  and  still  later  in  1897.  Congress  has 
also  given  its  assent  to  the  doctrine  at  different  times  in  our  history.  Having  thus 
the  acceptance  of  the  executive,  the  legislative,  and  the  judicial  departments  of 
the  government,  it  should  now  be  regarded  as  an  established  right. 


ANNEXATION    AN    ELEMENT   OF   STRENGTH. 

To  the  argument  used  as  to  annexation  being  a  source  of  weakness,  our  experi 
ence  has  proven  it  to  be  an  element  of  strength.  As  bases  of  supply  in  war  time 
we  have  been  taught  that  many  of  our  accessions  have  been  invaluable.  Our  great 
battle  ships  are  propelled  by  steam,  and  coal  for  fuel  is  indispensable.  Bases  of 
supply  must  be  had.  Our  warships  crossing  the  ocean,  or  distant  from  the  main 
land,  and  with  exhausted  coal  bunkers  meeting  the  enemy  will  invite  destruction. 
Stress  of  weather,  disabled  machinery,  or  other  accidents  produce  delay.  If  relief 
is  sought  in  neutral  ports  they  will  be  closed  against  the  ship's  necessities  except 
under  certain  restrictions.  Modern  invention  has  given  rise  to  this  necessity  for 
fuel  supply.  In  former  years  our  ships  of  war  were  propelled  by  wind  and  sail, 
and  a  distant  base  of  supply  was  a  matter  of  comparative  indifference.  Outlying 
points  overlooking  the  mainland,  or  in  the  track  of  our  commerce,  afford  means 
for  defensive  operations  in  time  of  need  which  no  nation  should  disregard.  Terri 
torial  defense,  protection  against  military  or  naval  attack,  and  avoidance  of  conflict 
with  numerous  adjoining  powers  are  advantages  which  we  have  gained  through 
annexation. 

The  nations  of  the  Old  World  are  in  frequent  disputes  and  sometimes  wars 
arising  over  boundary  disputes,  customs  violations,  and  clash  of  jurisdictions, 
requiring  large  standing  armies  to  resist  invasion  or  to  punish  real  or  fancied 
wrongs. 

International  complications  rarely  occur  with  us  because  of  our  immunity 
from  such  elements  of  discord  and  the  legion  of  controversies  which  originate 
among  close  neighbors  having  rival  interests.  Our  brief  experience  with  Florida 
and  with  Louisiana  when  under  Spanish  control  gave  us  an  object  lesson  of  the 
effect  of  undesirable  neighbors.  Territorial  expansion  may,  therefore,  be  justified 
as  a  war  measure  as  well  as  upon  grounds  of  commercial  necessity. 

HOMOGENEITY   NOT   A   SERIOUS   OBJECTION. 

To  the  further  objection  that  the  populations  of  annexed  foreign  territory  are 
not  homogeneous  with  our  own,  we  have  discovered  from  experience  that  this  is 
no  serious  objection  in  the  end.  In  all  of  our  cessions  we  have  had  a  mixture  of 
races  to  contend  with.  With  Florida  we  acquired  a  Spanish  and  Indian  popula 
tion;  with  Texas  the  Spaniard,  the  Mexican,  and  the  Indian;  with  California  the 

2239 6 


82  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

same ;  with  Louisiana  we  had  the  Spaniard,  the  Frenchman,  and  the  Indian,  and 
with  Alaska  we  had  the  Russian  and  the  Eskimo. 

It  has  in  all  cases  been  demonstrated  that  the  stronger  races  dominate.  The 
American  element  proves  in  every  contest  for  supremacy  to  be  the  stronger.  It 
is  a  great  colonizer  and  educates  as  it  advances.  Wherever  it  goes  our  institu 
tions  go  with  it.  Before  it  the  foreign  element  becomes  Americanized  in  a  brief 
period.  It  is  a  formidable  missionary. 

A  further  check  is  provided  against  possible  danger  of  racial  conflict  or  lack 
of  homogeneity  in  the  population — so  far  as  the  purposes  of  our  civil  form  of 
government  may  be  perverted  by  the  participation  in  its  affairs  of  elements 
alien  and  antagonistic — in  the  exclusion  of  such  elements  from  the  exercise  of 
governmental  functions.  They  are  never  at  the  time  of  accession  admitted  or 
accepted  as  citizens  with  political  rights.  When  they  shall  enjoy  such  privileges 
is  a  matter  which  is  left  entirely  with  Congress.  In  the  meanwhile  they  are 
required  to  undergo  a  probation  or  pupilage  which  in  the  course  of  time  will  fit 
them  to  become  the  guardians  of  republican  institutions.  A  long  period  may 
intervene  before  they  may  be  allowed  to  enjoy  a  territorial  form  of  government, 
with  its  restricted  privileges,  and  thereafter  a  still  longer  period  may  ensue  before 
statehood  will  follow  to  confer  the  highest  rights  of  citizenship.  A  perpetual 
check  is  thus  provided  by  the  Constitution  against  the  incorporation  into  our 
political  system  of  state  or  national  government  of  an  element  unfitted  to  con 
trol.  To  argue  that  this  restraint  is  insufficient  or  may  be  disregarded  is  to  reflect 
upon  the  intelligence,  the  integrity,  and  the  patriotism  of  the  people's  repre 
sentatives  in  the  Congress  of  all  the  States  of  our  Union.  Of  this  Congress  is 
the  best  judge,  and  can  always  be  depended  upon  when  to  admit  these  territorial 
accessions  into  the  Union  as  States,  and  thus  far  this  high  trust  has  been  discharged 
with  eminent  satisfaction  and  discretion.  No  Territory  will  be  admitted  into  the 
Union  until  the  people  shall  have  demonstrated  their  capacity  for  statehood,  and, 
even  when  admitted,  Congress  can  legislate  such  limitations  and  restrictions  as 
shall  best  conserve  the  public  interests,  as  it  can  exclude  and  prohibit  any  undesir 
able  people  from  becoming  residents  of  our  country. 

ANNEXATION    BY   OTHER   NATIONS   AND   THEIR   FOREIGN   ELEMENTS. 

The  adoption  of  different  racial  elements  in  the  body  politic  is  the  history 
of  the  ages.  All  nations  have  gone  through  this  ordeal.  Great  Britain  is  an 
appropriate  illustration.  She  has  assimilated  the  most  diverse  beings,  and  from 
the  most  unfavorable  conditions  brought  them  under  highly  enlightened  and 
Christianizing  influences;  she  has  made  them  as  thoroughly  British  in  senti 
ment  and  industrial  habits  as  the  people  of  England  themselves,  and  her  colonial 
possessions  are  to-day  the  strength  and  glory  of  that  great  Empire.  Like  France, 
Holland  and  Portugal,  England  has  more  inhabitants  in  her  colonial  possessions 
than  she  has  at  home.  At  home  she  has  39,825,000,  while  in  her  colonies  she 
has  322,000,000.  At  home  France  has  38,520,000,  and  in  her  colonies  44,290,000. 
Portugal  has  5,050,000  at  home  and  10,215,000  in  her  colonies.  The  area  of  the 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  83 

German  Empire  proper  is  but  one-fifth  that  of  her  colonial  possessions,  while 
the  area  of  England's  colonial  possessions  is  eighty  times  as  great  as  the  home 
country.  This  mere  statement  necessarily  implies  the  diverse  character  of  the 
races  which  go  to  make  up  the  population  of  the  widely  scattered  possessions  of 
these  nations.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  these  mighty  powers  have  become  enervated 
or  denationalized  In  spirit  or  threatened  in  unity  because  of  their  annexations  or 
distant  colonial  possessions. 

AX   OBJECT    LESSON    IX    EXGLAXD'S    ASSIMILATION   OF   RACES. 

An  illustration  as  forcible  as  it  was  beautiful  of  the  success  in  the  cementing- 

o 

and  assimilating  of  Britain's  widely  different  colonial  elements  was  witnessed  in 
the  city  of  London  the  past  year  at  the  Queen's  Jubilee  in  commemoration  of  the 
sixtieth  anniversary  of  her  reign.  There  were  assembled  in  the  might}'  concourse 
present  representatives  from  each  of  the  British  colonies  who  came  to  do  honor 
and  to  express  their  fealty  to  the  great  head  of  the  consolidated  Empire.  As  an 
object  lesson  of  the  strength  of  the  several  remote  possessions,  their  military  was 
most  conspicuous  in  the  magnificent  cavalcade.  Troops  were  there  from  Canada, 
India,  New  South  Wales,  Hongkong,  Cape  Colony,  Jamaica,  New  Zealand,  Aus 
tralia,  and  other  portions  of  the  English  domain — in  all,  the  military  of  twenty- 
five  colonies  were  in  the  march.  The  native  troops  were  there.  The  black  and 
the  bronzed  faces  proclaimed  their  racial  status.  Some  wore  the  fez,  some  the  red 
cap,  some  the  gay  colored  turban,  some  the  Chinese  head  covering,  and  so-  on, 
while  the  uniforms  displayed  were  even  more  varied  in  style  and  color.  There 
were  exhibited  the  same  proud  tread  in  the  movements  and  the  same  loyal  devo 
tion  in  the  faces  of  the  dragoons  of  Manitoba,  the  infantrymen  of  the  West  Indies, 
the  hussars  and  lancers  of  New  South  Wales,  and  the  North  Borneo  policemen, 
as  were  seen  in  the  Royal  Dragoons  of  London. 

As  showing  the  wealth,  strength  and  power  which  have  come  to  Great  Britain 
through  annexation  within  Queen  Victoria's  reign,  it  will  be  of  interest  to  read 
the  recent  comments  of  Gen.  Nelson  A.  Miles,  of  the  United  States  Army  (see 
McClure's  Magazine  for  July,  1898),  upon  the  secret  of  England's  mighty  prestige. 
He  says: 

In  1837,  when  Victoria  was  crowned,  the  entire  white  colonial  population  was  only  1,250,000. 
To-day  it  is  over  10,000,000.  At  that  time  India  was  not  yet  a  direct  dependency  of  the  Crown,  but 
was  still  under  the  rule  of  the  East  India  Company.  Hongkong  had  not  been  added  as  a  military 
outpost,  nor  was  nearly  so  large  a  part  of  the  Malay  Peninsula  under  British  control.  In  all  Australia, 
in  1837,  there  were  only  about  100,000  British  colonists — scattered  in  Tasmania,  New  Zealand,  and 
South  Australia  -and  most  of  these  were  supposed  to  be  felons  and  convicts.  The  interior  of  Australia 
was  entirely  unexplored.  The  resources  were  unknown,  its  future  undreamed.  To-day  Australia  is 
made  up  of  seven  rich  provinces  and  has  a  population  of  4,000,000  as  loyal,  intelligent,  and  progressive 
British  subjects  as  exist  on  the  globe. 

In  South  Africa  sixty  years  ago  the  English  domain  was  confined  to  the  southern  point  of  the 
continent ;  to-day  it  extends,  with  only  one  important  break,  from  the  Cape  to  the  sources  of  the  Nile. 
When  Victoria  ascended  the  throne  the  British  in  North  America  were  nearly  all  gathered  in  Ontario 
and  Quebec,  and  the  Hudson  Bay  Company  occupied  all  the  central  and  western  provinces  of  what  is 


84  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

now  known  as  the  Canadian  Dominion.  British  Columbia  was  an  unknown  waste,  only  to  be  reached 
by  a  terrible  sea  voyage  around  Cape  Horn.  Yet  to-day  the  Imperial  Government  is  in  force  over  all 
this  vast  territory.  London  is  now  only  ten  days  from  Vancouver,  and  every  year  is  seeing  the  devel 
opment  of  new  resources  by  a  territory  once  believed  to  be  useless  except  as  a  fur-producing  country. 

OUR    FURTHER    DESTINY. 

When  we  pause  to  review  the  marvelous  development  and  expansion  of  our 
own  country  since  the  immortal  proclamation  of  freedom  was  first  announced 
from  Independence  Hall,  Philadelphia,  and  realize  that  but  little  over  a  century 
measures  the  interval  of  time  during  which  the  colossal  Republic  has  reached  a 
limit  of  forty-five  great  States,  with  several  important  Territories  and  Districts, 
each  one  of  which  is  comparable  as  an  equal  with  some  nation  in  the  old  world, 
and  all  of  these  magnificent  divisions,  including  Hawaii,  under  one  flag,  one  con 
stitution,  and  one  indissoluble  and  glorious  union,  may  we  not  indulge  in  prophetic 
thought  as  to  the  wondrous  revelations  which  the  next  few  years  of  our  history 
must  unfold?  We  have  already  become  the  greatest  agricultural,  the  greatest 
manufacturing,  and  the  greatest  mining  nation.  According  to  Mulhall  we  are 
now  the  wealthiest  of  all  the  nations.  We  have  become  the  second  greatest 
commercial  nation,  and  are  rapidly  approaching  first  place.  As  a  military  and 
naval  power,  we  have  made  a  history  within  the  present  year,  which  has  moved 
the  American  people  to  the  front  rank  before  the  world.  What  shall  be  the  further 
destiny  of  this  nation?  Grand  and  unprecedented  as  has  been  our  past,  we  are 
now  emerging  upon  an  era  still  more  resplendent,  and  far  superior  to  anything 
that  has  gone  before  in  our  history.  Our  horizon  has  broadened  and  increased. 
That  which  before  in  many  things  was  a  mere  interest  has  now  become  a  necessity. 
None  can  predict  the  mighty  sweep  of  the  present  evolution.  It  is  destiny.  New 
domains,  new  responsibilities,  and  new  demands  are  before  us.  Our  possessions  in 
the  distant  seas  will  call  for  such  government  and  such  international  policy  as  was 
never  before  required  in  our  affairs.  For  this  reason  we  must  rely  in  the  future 
more  upon  our  Navy.  This  realization  has  already  been  brought  home  to  us  and 
we  are  profiting  by  the  lesson.  Fifteen  years  ago  we  ranked  twelfth  in  maritime 
strength  among  the  nations  while  now  we  have  become  the  fifth,  if  not  the  fourth 
naval  power.  We  are  also  entering  upon  an  age  of  competition.  What  protection 
shall  our  vast  and  growing  foreign  and  domestic  commerce  receive? 

OUR   INCREASING   COMMERCE. 

The  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  the  Treasury  Department  officially  assures  us 
that  the  exports  of  our  country  for  the  year  ended  June  30,  1898,  exceed  the 
enormous  value  of  $1,200,000,000.  No  month  since  last  August  has  fallen  below 
$95,000,000,  while  the  exports  for  May  last  amounted  to  $110,239,206. 

The  imports  for  the  same  year  exceed  $600,000,000  in  value.  It  can  now  be 
said  that  our  exports  are  double  in  value  to  our  imports.  We  are  selling  twice  as 
much  as  we  are  buying — a  most  inspiring  spectacle — and  a  result  as  commendable 
and  significant  in  the  affairs  of  a  nation  as  in  those  of  an  individual.  I  have 


160 


159 


22 


Miles   to   Manila 


I  /'' 


r 


2(f 


o 


m 


19 


V' 


Compiled  and  drawn  Ay  E.PHouyh.        I  60 


159 


158 


Map 

HAM:VIIA> 

Area,  6.040 


57 


156 


155' 

I  ~ 


-H 


^^ 


KAIIOOI.AXVF] 

Area  60 
Sq  Miles.. 


Distances   <jiv</>    <u't    m   .Statuh 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  85 

found  no  other  instance  within  the  century  where  the  exports  of  a  nation  have  been 
double  the  imports.  Indeed,  it  is  said  this  record  is  without  a  parallel  in  the 
annals  of  the  world!  To  maintain  this  splendid  reputation  and  to  excel  this  high 
standard  among  all  nations,  it  is  essential  that  we  shall  anticipate  our  further 
development  in  the  near  future  and  wisely  avail  ourselves  of  such  acquisition  of 
territory,  naval  and  coaling  stations  and  such  advantages  by  treaties  and  commer 
cial  agreements  as  shall  enable  us  not  only  to  enlarge  the  scope  of  our  export 
traffic  and  further  multiply  the  market  places  for  our  varied,  wondrous,  and 
rapidly  increasing  productions,  but  also  to  protect  and  defend  the  trade  which 
shall  follow  the  flag. 

Is  the  imperial  domain  which  is  now  the  Republic  to  remain  content  with  its 
present  advance,  or  is  it  written  for  the  future  that  accession  and  annexation  shall 
still  further  progress  until  we  shall  secure  the  island  approaches  in  the  Atlantic 
which  under  foreign  flags  and  rival  nations  still  menace  the  way  to  the  Gulf  ports 
and  to  the  great  river  which  carries  to  the  markets  of  the  world  the  rich  commerce 
of  many  of  the  States  of  the  Union? 

HAWAII. 

It  is  now  already  written  that  on  the  Pacific  side  of  our  Republic  and  along 
the  track  of  our  increasing  and  lucrative  commerce  with  the  Occident  and  the 
Orient,  the  islands  which  lie  to  the  westward  and  face  the  California  shores  are 
ours.  These  aggregate  in  area  6,740  square  miles — nearly  the  combined  area  of 
the  States  of  Connecticut  and  Delaware.  They  contain  the  little  republic  which 
has  long  prospered  under  the  stimulus  of  American  enterprise  and  capital,  until 
at  last  95  per  cent  of  its  property  values  represent  the  possessions  of  our  own 
kindred.  As  an  evidence  of  the  present  commercial  importance  to  the  United 
States  of  these  islands,  it  is  of  interest  to  note  that  of  the  $200,000,000  in  value 
of  exports  since  1876,  more  than  $180,000,000  in  value  came  to  this  country;  and  of 
the  $100,000,000  worth  of  imports  by  Hawaii  from  all  countries  during  the  same 
period  about  $70,000,000  worth  were  from  the  United  States.  In  this  present  year 
the  American  exports  to  Hawaii  will  equal  $6,000,000  as  against  about  $1,000,000 
only  twenty-two  years  ago.  It  is  officially  estimated  that  her  exports  to  the  United 
States  this  year  will  equal  in  value  $15,000,000,  while  in  1876 — only  twenty-two 
years  ago — they  did  not  much  exceed  $1,000,000  in  value.  So  thoroughly  Ameri 
can  has  that  traffic  become  that  already  90  per  cent  of  the  entire  shipments  from 
Hawaii  comes  to  this  country.  Were  we  not  enjoined  to  acquire  these  islands  as 
a  defense  to  our  traffic  on  the  Pacific  as  it  crosses  and  recrosses  at  all  hours  to  the 
Asiatic  shores? 

OUR    ASIATIC   TRADE. 

Our  annual  trade  with  the  Orient  amounts  in  value  to  over  $56,000,000.  Our 
exports  to  China  in  1895  were  only  $3,603,840  in  value,  while  they  will  reach  a  total 
this  year  of  nearly  $11,000,000.  Our  sales  to  that  country  the  present  year  will 
show  an  increase  over  those  of  nine  years  ago  of  over  300  per  cent!  Our  purchases 


86  THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE. 

from  the  same  country  only  show  an  increase  of  35  per  cent.  Of  our  total  exports 
to  Asia  we  have  made  a  gain  this  year  more  than  double  that  of  1890  and  ten  times 
greater  than  that  of  1870.  Across  the  Pacific  we  behold  nearly  one-half  of  the 
world's  population.  We  are  their  nearest  market,  and,  considering  only  our  trade 
interests  and  merchant  marine,  should  we  not  exercise  the  utmost  vigilance,  not 
only  in  maintaining  and  extending  this  valuable  commerce,  but  also  in  providing 
sufficient  safeguards  for  the  future? 

THE   SANDWICH    ISLANDS    A   SAFEGUARD. 

Our  possession  of  the  Sandwich  Islands  is  a  safeguard.  Are  they  not  indis 
pensable  to  us  as  a  military  and  naval  outpost  for  the  defense  of  our  Pacific 
mainland  as  well  as  a  resting  place  and  depot  of  supply  for  our  merchant  ships 
and  those  of  our  Navy?  Should  not  such  a  strategic  outpost  long  since  have 
been  added  to  our  domain  ?  Have  we  any  reason  to  apprehend  that  Hawaii  will 
add  discredit  to  our  past  record  of  successful  annexation? 

The  Hawaiian  people  as  a  whole  are  to-day  further  advanced  educationally, 
industrially  and  commercially,  than  the  people  inhabiting  any  other  country  at 
the  time  of  its  annexation  or  cession  to  our  domain.  Their  Republic  has  been 
governed  in  a  wise,  economic  and  statesmanlike  manner.  Their  resources  are 
abundant  and  varied,  and  fully  justify  the  assurance  that,  with  the  added  stimulus 
which  annexation  will  give,  Hawaii  will  eventually  become  the  garden  spot  of  the 
world,  at  the  same  time  being  a  defensive  point  and  a  commercial  aid  to  our 
country. 

All  hail,  then,  this  last  acquisition  to  the  Great  Republic.  What  a  glorious 
interval  between  Louisiana  in  1803  and  Hawaii  in  1898.  As  the  illustrious 
Thomas  Jefferson,  for  his  annexation  of  the  empire  west  of  the  Mississippi,  crowned 
his  memory  with  imperishable  fame,  so  President  William  McKinley  has  added  to 
his  renown,  and  forever  endeared  himself  to  his  fellow-countrymen,  for  his  safe 
counsels  and  his  untiring  and  zealous  aid  in  the  annexation  of  Hawaii  to  our 
domain.  Together  we  link  the  names  of  these  two  great  Presidents  and  American 
annexationists — the  one  at  the  beginning  of  the  century,  the  other  at  its  close. 
The  succeeding  years  will  richly  vindicate  the  present  Executive  in  this  splendid 
act,  as  the  past  has  so  gloriously  verified  the  foresight  of  the  sage  of  Monticello 
in  his  record  of  annexation.  The  year  1898  will  be  a  precious  memory  to  all 
patriotic  Americans.  The  world  will  gaze  upon  its  record  in  wonder  and  admi 
ration.  The  part  which  Americans  have  acted  in  this  year  will  go  down  the 
ages.  It  will  read  in  the  future  more  like  fable  than  fact.  In  war  and  in  peace 
our  trophies  are  as  many  and  as  grand  as  they  are  marvelous  and  like  revelation. 

THE    NICARAGUA    CANAL. 

The  intelligent  judgment  of  the  American  people,  which  has  so  often 
approved  the  past  policy  of  our  country  in  reference  to  the  many  splendid  accessions 
to  our  domain,  wiTl  not  hesitate  to  secure  still  further  advantages  by  the  same  wise 


THE   LOUISIANA   PURCHASE.  87 

diplomacy.  This  hope  having  now  been  realized. as  to  Hawaii,  and  the  track  of  our 
immense  commerce  along  the  oceanic  highway  thus  far  largely  protected,  is  there 
not  still  another  important  duty  incumbent  upon  us,  as  imperative  as  it  is  essen 
tial,  and  which  appeals  to  every  public-spirited  and  patriotic  American?  There  is; 
and  that  duty  calls  for  the  construction  of  the  Nicaragua  Canal,  to  be  not  only 
constructed,  but  owned  and  controlled  by  our  Government.  With  the  canal 
completed,  our  Atlantic  and  Pacific  seaboards  will  be  brought  nearer  together  by 
almost  n,ooo  miles.  In  the  event  of  war  with  any  nation  this  canal  will  bring  our 
military  and  naval  forces  from  both  oceans  with  quick  and  safe  dispatch  at  any 
threatened  point  along  our  coasts  or  upon  our  island  possessions.  The  very 
security  which  such  an  advantage  would  confer  would  of  itself  often  prevent  con 
flicts,  as  no  nation  would  hastily  engage  our  country  in  war  with  such  a  safeguard 
and  such  an  avenue  for  rapid  passage  and  national  defense.  The  commerce  of  the 
Atlantic  as  well  as  of  the  Pacific  demands  this  interoceanic  highway.  A  stream 
of  traffic  will  pour  direct  from  the  great  rivers  and  lakes  on  the  one  side  to  those 
on  the  other.  The  products  of  our  country  will  find  cheap  transportation  for  inter 
change  in  our  home  markets,  as  well  as  more  profitable  shipment  to  the  wider 
marts  of  the  world.  The  mouth  of  the  Columbia  river,  in  a  sense,  will  be 
extended  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  to  the  Pacific 
Ocean.  Our  people  will  become  more  closely  related.  Our  nation  will  become 
stronger  at  home  and  more  honored  abroad.  When  the  great  undertaking  shall 
have  been  accomplished,  it  can  then  be  said  that  of  all  achievements  in  our 
industrial  development  none  will  have  contributed  more  to  the  material  interests 
of  our  people  than  this  world-famed  project.  While  extending  our  already  vast 
commerce  and  dominion  it  will  also  contribute  to  the  defense,  the  honor,  and 
the  glory  of  our  beloved  country,  and  be  a  monument  to  American  genius  and 
American  foresight  and  energy  as  long  as  time  shall  endure. 


RETURN 


CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

198  Main  Stacks 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS. 

Renewls  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling  642-3405. 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

r'  12-9 

5£B  1  7  2002 

.,  A  1  ?nn 

) 

|jj\n  y  J,  tuu 

/  '  '   '   "* 

1 

ADD   1   ft  7003 

firn    x  u   LUUJ 

FORM  NO.  DD6 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY  CA  94720-6000 


BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


BOD3021S3«) 


